Allowed

M/S Nathuram Bajaj Eit Bhatta, Ummedpur, Etah v. the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2020STRE/61/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision regarding violations of U.P. VAT Rules. It set aside judgments where the appellate courts proceeded in absentia of the appellant contravening procedural rules. The appeal was restored to require the applicant's presence and a merit-based decision following rule compliance.

What did the court decide?

Judgments of First and Second Appellate Courts set aside. First Appeal restored to original number. Applicant directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- and appear for decision on merits on 8.4.2020.

M/S Nathuram Bajaj Eit Bhatta, Ummedpur, Etah Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 61 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- M/S Nathuram Bajaj Eit Bhatta, Ummedpur, Etah Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- Ankur Agarwal,Raj Kamal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶5

The Revision is being entertained on the question of law as has been framed in the Revision which states that the Appellate Court's judgments and orders have been passed in violation of Rule 63(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant in the Revision while assailing the order of the First Appellate Court and the judgment and order of the Appellate Tribunal states that even if the appellant did not appear, the point for determination and decision thereof had to be there.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for the Department, however, states that when the appellant did not appear, the Courts had no other option but to decide the cases after observing that the appellant was not present. He further submitted that there is no provision in the Act for dismissing the Appeals in default.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through the judgments and orders, I definitely find that the conduct of the appellant has not been up to the mark. He should have appeared before the Courts where he had filed the appeals. In the event, no appearance is there, the Courts have no other option but to decide the cases summarily. At the same time I also find that the Appellate Courts have not adhered to the Rule 63(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008.

¶9

Thus, keeping in mind the interest of justice, the judgments and orders dated 31.8.2017 and 17.12.2019 passed by the First

¶10

Appellate Court and the Second Appellate Court respectively are set-aside. The First Appeal being First Appeal No.2 of 2015 is restored to its original number and the applicant shall appear and argue the case and thereafter the First Appellate Court shall decide the appeal on merits as per the provisions of Rule 63 (5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008. The First Appeal shall be fixed for 8.4.2020.

¶11

This order, however, would come into effect only if the Applicant deposits Rs.5000/- before the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and a proof of deposit of which shall be produced before the First Appellate Court.

¶12

With these observations, the Revision stands allowed.

¶13

Order Date :- 5.3.2020 GS

¶14

(Siddhartha Varma, J.)

M/S Nathuram Bajaj Eit Bhatta, Ummedpur, Etah v. the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Nathuram Bajaj Eit Bhatta, Ummedpur, Etah v. the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajendra Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

J.M.D. Cold Starage Nagar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

J.M.D. Cold Storage Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Suraj Singh Vs Prescribed Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act and 3 Others

M/S Nathuram Bajaj Eit Bhatta, Ummedpur, Etah Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow

Bengal Bitumen Vs the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow