M/S Vaishnavi Enterprises Lko. Thru. Its Proprietor Jai Shanker Tripathi Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Tax Lucknow. U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:18127

Court No. - 5

Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 16 of 2023 Revisionist :- M/S Vaishnavi Enterprises Lko. Thru. Its Proprietor Jai Shanker Tripathi

¶4

Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax Lucknow. U.P.

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.

¶6

And

¶7

Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 17 of 2023 Revisionist :- M/S Vaishnavi Enterprises,Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor Jai Shanker Tripathi

¶8

Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax, Lko. U.P.

¶9

Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.

¶10

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶11

At the very outset, learned counsel for revisionist states that although objections have been filed by the respondents yet he does not intend to file any reply thereto.

¶12

The aforesaid statement is recorded.

¶13

Heard Shri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist as well as Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State-respondents.

¶14

Learned counsels for the parties contend that the issue involved in SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 16 of 2023 and SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 17 of 2023 are the same. As such, the Court proceeds to hear both the revisions together and both are being decided by way of a common judgement. For convenience, facts of SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 16 of 2023 are being taken.

¶15

There is a consensus between the parties that the following question of law may be framed for deciding the instant revision:

¶16

"(i) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal being a last court of fact, accepted all the explanation of the applicant-revisionist, but still justified, is partly allowed in absence of any adverse material on record?"

¶17

The argument urged by learned counsel for the revisionist is that a perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned Tribunal would indicate that the learned Tribunal had accepted both the arguments of the revisionist as have been indicated in the penultimate paragraph of the said judgment namely (a) the purchase tax on the purchase of timber from the unregistered dealer, which has been paid by the merchant in the form of ITC is in accordance with the letter No.666 dated 10.03.2008 and (b) there is no calculation error in the chart filed by the dealer regarding the calculation of purchase tax and ITC deposited in the relevant year and therefore, the chart filed on this point is accepted.

¶18

It is argued that despite the aforesaid findings that have been recorded by the Tribunal in favour of the revisionist, his appeals have only been partly allowed.

¶19

The argument is that once both the findings are in favour of the revisionist, consequently there was no occasion for the appeals filed by the revisionist to be partly allowed rather the appeals should have been fully allowed, which not being done, renders the order of learned Tribunal to be set aside.

¶20

On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Sarin has supported the order passed by the learned Tribunal by contending that the learned Tribunal was seized with four appeals namely two appeals filed

¶21

by the revisionist and two appeals filed by the State and all the four appeals have been clubbed together. He further argues that although the aforesaid findings are in favour of the revisionist yet the perusal of the judgment in its entirety would indicate that certain aspects of the matter have not found favour with the learned Tribunal with the result that the appeals have been partly allowed and as such, there is no illegality or infirmity with the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that the learned Tribunal while passing the judgment and order dated 03.11.2022 was considering four appeals i.e. two appeals filed by the revisionist herein and two appeals filed by the State. All the four appeals were clubbed together and have been decided by means of a common judgment and order dated 03.11.2022. Despite the learned Tribunal having recorded findings in favour of the revisionist, as already indicated above, yet the appeals filed by the revisionist have only been partly allowed. No reasons emerge from the order impugned as to why the learned Tribunal, despite recording the findings in favour of the revisionist, has only allowed the appeal partly. Even though the four appeals have been clubbed together yet it was the duty of the learned Tribunal to have clearly discussed the facts, circumstances and grounds of each appeal and should have recorded its findings separately which has not been done by the learned Tribunal.

¶23

Accordingly, keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 03.11.2022 passed in Second Appeal No.126 of 2022 for the year 2014-15 under Section 28(2)(ii) and Second Appeal No.125 of 2002 for the year 2014-15 under Section 9(2) so far

¶24

as it pertains to the revisionist is set aside . The matter is remitted to the learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh keeping in view of the discussion made above. Let such a decision be taken by the learned Tribunal in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶25

The question of law stands answered accordingly.

¶26

Order Date :- 27.2.2024 S. Shivhare

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Vaishnavi Enterprises Lko. Thru. Its Proprietor Jai Shanker Tripathi v. the Commissioner of Commercial Tax Lucknow. U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vaishnavi Enterprises Lko. Thru. Its Proprietor Jai Shanker Tripathi v. the Commissioner of Commercial Tax Lucknow. U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghu Bansh Singh and Another Vs Smt.Saumya Singh and Another

Smt. Richa Srivastava and Others Vs Subodh Srivastava

Ghansyam Tiwari Vs District Magistrate / Collector Distt. Amethi and 3 Others

M/S Vaishnavi Enterprises,Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor Jai Shanker Tripathi Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax, Lko. U.P.

The General Secretary,Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Association,H.a.L. Lucknow Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Labour and Employment,New Delhi and 8 Others

Punnu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector / D.M. Ambedkar Nagar and 8 Others