Allahabad High Court Quashes Commercial Tax Tribunal's Judgement For Non-Compliance Of Rule 63(5) Of U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008

The Allahabad High Court has quashed the Commercial Tax Tribunal's judgement for non-compliance with Rule 63(5) of the U.P.V.A.T. Rules, 2008.

The bench of Justice Abdul Moin has observed that, as per Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008, a 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 judgement.

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.

Section 57(8) of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008 provides that the Tribunal may, if it has not already dismissed the appeal 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, 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) 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.

The revisionist contended that the Tribunal has neither indicated the points for determination nor given any decision after noting 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 held that failure to comply with the provisions would not be a mere irregularity but would render the judgement nugatory.

The court 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.

Counsel For Revisionist: Rajesh Kumar Shukla Dr.

Counsel For Respondent: C.S.C.

Case Title: M/S Rajansh Marble House Gomti Nagar Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 115

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 115

Case No.: Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 39 Of 2018

Click Here To Read The Order