Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Shivam Trading Company, Badaun v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 226 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7438 (6 April 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



These two Trade Tax Revision arise out of one common order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal,  Bareilly Bench, Bareilly and are therefore being decided by means of this common judgment.

The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was assessed to a tax liability of Rs. 9,89,836/- under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and for a sum of Rs. 75,824/- under the Central Sales Tax Act vide order dated 5.4.2003 passed by the Assessing Authority.  Against the said order petitioner filed first appeal no. 402/03 and 403/03.  The Appeal filed under the U.P. Trade Tax Act was partly allowed, while the Appeal filed under the Central Sales Tax Act was rejected.  Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the First Appellate Authority petitioner filed second appeal no. 24 of 2004 and 25 of 2004.  Against the relief granted by the First Appellate Court to the assessee, the department filed second appeal which was numbered as 103 of 2004.

The three IInd appeals were consolidated and fixed for hearing on 11.3.2005.  On the date fixed i.e. 11.3.2005 the counsel nor the petitioner could appear before the Tribunal for the various reasons.  The Tribunal in absence of the assessee or his counsel dismissed all the three IInd Appeals under order dated 11.3.2005.

Petitioner thereafter made an application under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for recall of the ex-parte judgment passed in the aforesaid appeals within the period of limitation.  The applications were numbered as 01 of 2005 and 02 of 2005.  Both the applications have been rejected by means of the order dated 26.12.2005.  Hence this writ petition.

I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.

In the opinion of the Court the Tribunal has adopted an hyper technical attitude in rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.  Interest of justice requires that attempt should be  made to decide the matter after hearing the parties litigating. In totality of the circumstances of this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the order passed by the Tribunal dated 11.3.2005 and dated 26.12.2005 are quashed and the matter is remanded for decision of Appeal Nos. 24 of 2005 and 25 of 2005 on merits. It is directed accordingly.    

The Tribunal is directed to restore the appeals and decide them on merits preferably within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.  Petitioner undertakes to file a certified copy of this order within 15 days from today before the Tribunal.

Dated: 6.4.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.