LexRASHTRIYA AUDYOGIK SANSTIIAN versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RASHTRIY A AUDYOGIK SANSTIIAN
A
v.
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P.
MARCH 22, 2007
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.]
B
Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948:
S. 11-Revisional Jurisdiction- under-Exercise of-Scope-Held, can
be exercised only if question of law has arisen.
C
The assessee-appellant successfully challenged the demand raised by
Assessing Authority under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, before
the Tribunal. Revenue filed revision applications under s.11 of the Act before .
the High Court, which was allowed.
In appeal to this Court, assessee contended that without formulating any
question of la~, the exercise of jurisdiction under s. ll of the Act was
impermissible.
D
Respondent contended that though the questions have not been
specifically indicated, the basic issues for determination were taken note of E
and the impunged orders were passed.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: The impunged order of High Court is set aside and matter is
remitted to High Court so that question of law, if any, which arises in the F
facts of the case can be formulated. Only if question of law arises, then only
the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised. [Para 9) (377-G)
Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Kumaon Tractors & Motors, (2002)
9 SCC 379; Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. Mis Mohan Brickjield, Agra,
{2006) 2 SCALE 17, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1538 of2007.
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2005 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Trade Tax Revision Nos. 1234 & 1304 of 1997.
373
G
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 4 S.C.R.
A
Manoj Goel, Shuvodeep Roy, W. Shafiq, Gopal Venna and Brij Bhushan
B
for the Appellant.
Vimla Sinha and Kamlendra Mishra for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. l. Le.:ive granted.
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single
Judge of the Allahabad High Court disposing of several revision petitions
filed by the respondent-Commissioner of Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, under the
C Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short 'Act').
3. The factual position which is almost undisputed is as under:
Two petitions for revision under Section 11 · of the Act were filed before
the High Court questioning correctness of the common order dated 28th May,
1997, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Agra (in short the 'Tribunal'). The
D disputes related to the assessments for assessment year 1987-88 under the
Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short the 'Central Act'). Demands
were raised by orders of the assessment dated 17.9.1993. The demands were
challenged before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) II, Trade Tax, Agra
who remitted the matter to the Tax Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
E Appellant (hereinafter described as 'assessee') filed appeals before the
Tribunal.
The appeals were allowed and the first appellate orders dated
22. 7 .1996 were set aside.
As noted above, Revenue filed two revision
applications under Section 11 of the Act before the High Court. By the
impugned order dated 20.5.2005, the revisions were allowed and the orders of
F
the Tribunal were set aside and that of the first Appellate Authority restored.
4. Though many points were urged in support of the appeals it was
primarily conte;ided that without fonnufating any question oflaw, the exercise
of jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act was impermissible.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported
G the order of the High Court saying that though the questions have not been
specifically indicated the basic i3sues for detennination were taken note of
and the impugned orders were passed.
H
6. We shall first deal with the power of the High Court in dealing with
the revision petition. Section 11 of the Act reads as follows:
"11. Revision by High Court in special cases -{ 1) Any person
RASHTRIY A AUDYOGIK SANSTHAN v. COMMR. OFTRADE TAX, U.P. [PASAYA T, J.] 3 75
aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) A
of Section l 0, other than an order under sub-section (2) of that
section summarily disposing of the appeal, or by an order passed
under Section 22 by the Tribunal, may, within ninety days from the
date of service of such order, apply to the High Court for revision of
such order on the ground that the case involves any question of Jaw. B
(2Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.