High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow. v. Ramachander Kewlani, Basti. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1782 of 1992  RD-AH 1046 (6 October 2004)
Court no. 55
Sales Tax Revision no. 1782 of 1992.
Sales Tax Revision no. 1783 of 1992.
Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ... Revisionist.
Ramachander Kewlani, Basti. ... Respondent.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
The present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 3.9.1992 relating to assessment year 1982-83 and 1983-84.
Dealer opp.party was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of bricks. Assessing Authority had levied tax on the purchase of coal from unregistered dealer under Section 3-AAAA. Tribunal vide order dated 27.4.1991 deleted the tax on the ground that Section 3-AAAA was declared ultra vires by the Division Bench decision in the case of Pioneer Tanneries and Glue Works, Kanpur and another Vs. State of U. P. reported in 1991 UPTC page 585. Subsequently, the aforesaid decision has been over ruled by the Apex Court n the case of Hotel Balaji and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 1993 UPTC page 318 and the provisions of Section 3-AAAA which was declared ultra vires was also substituted by another Section 3-AAAA with retrospective effect. In view of the aforesaid two factors, Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax moved application under Section 22 for rectification of the order-dated 27.4.1991. Applications were signed by the Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax, Gorakhpur and were filed by the Sales Tax Officer, State Representative, Bench-II Sri R. N. Ram. Tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that the same were not maintainable, inasmuch as, right to file appeal was only with the Deputy Commissioner (Executive).
Heard learned Standing Counsel. Inspite of service, no one appears on behalf of the dealer.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application as not maintainable treating it as appeal. He further submitted that the application were duly signed by Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax and therefore, they were maintainable. I find force in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. In my opinion, Tribunal has wrongly treated the applications under Section 22 as appeal. Application under Section 22 were signed by Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax and therefore, were duly maintainable. Rejection of applications were not maintainable, is not justified. In the circumstances, order of Tribunal is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the applications under Section 22 on merit.
In the result, revision is allowed. Order of Tribunal is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal filed under Section 22 on merit.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.