The Allahabad High Court in the case M/S Rajansh Marble House Gomti Nagar Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow And Another observed and has quashed the judgement of Commercial Tax Tribunal’s for non-compliance with Rule 63(5) of the U.P.V.A.T. Rules, 2008.
The bench headed by Justice Abdul Moin in the case observed that as per Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008, the judgement and appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision, and the reason for the decision, which were not compiled by the Commercial Tax Tribunal while passing the said judgement.
Therefore, the revision was filed challenging the judgement and order passed by the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, U.P., to the extent it relates to the second appeal filed by the revisionist.
It has also been stated under section 57(8) of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008, which provides that the Tribunal may, if it has not already dismissed the appeal as stated under Section 57(7) of the Act 2008, after calling for and examining relevant records and after giving the parties reasonable opportunities of being heard, or as the case may be, the Section 56(5) provides the manner and procedure of summary disposal of appeals, as may be prescribed. Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2008 which provides that a judgement and appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reason for the decision. It has been contended by the revisionist that the Tribunal has neither indicated the points for determination nor given any decision after noting that the points for determination or the reasons for the decision. Consequently, the judgement would be against the mandatory provisions of Section 57(8), read with 57(5), and Rule 63(5).
The court in the case observed and has held that failure to comply with the provisions would not be a mere irregularity but would render the judgement nugatory. The court in the case observed and has remitted the matter to the Commercial Tax Tribunal to pass a fresh decision in accordance with the law, complying with the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, 2008, and Rule 63 of the Rules, 2008.
The counsel, Rajesh Kumar Shukla Dr. appeared for the revisionist.
The counsel, C.S.C. represented the respondent.
