• twitter-icon
Unlimited Tax Return Filing


Allahabad HC Deletes Judgement of Tribunal for Non-Compliance With Rule 63(5)

Allahabad HC's Order for Rajansh Marble House

The Allahabad High Court has suppressed the Commercial Tax Tribunal’s judgment for non-compliance with Rule 63(5) of the U.P.V.A.T. Rules, 2008.

The bench of Justice Abdul Moin has followed that according to Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008, a judgment and petition will be in writing and shall mention the points for determination, the decision, and the cause for the decision, which were not compiled by the Commercial Tax Tribunal during passing the judgment.

The amendment was filed contesting the judgment and order passed through the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, U.P., to the extent it connects to the second appeal filed by the revisionist.

Section 57(8) of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008 furnishes that the Tribunal may, if it has not already dismissed the appeal under Section 57(7) of the Act 2008, post calling for and reviewing pertinent records and post providing the parties reasonable chance of being heard, or as the case may be, Section 56(5) furnishes the manner and approach of summary disposal of appeals, as may be prescribed.

Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2008) furnishes that a judgment and petition will be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereafter, and the reason for the decision.

Read Also:- GST vs VAT: Simple Way to Describe the Differences

The revisionist argued that the Tribunal does not show the points for determination nor give any decision after noting the points for determination or the reasons for the decision. Therefore, the judgment would be against the mandatory provisions of Section 57(8), read with 57(5), and Rule 63(5).

Failure to comply with the provisions would not be only irregularity but render the judgment nugatory, the court ruled.

The court remitted the case to the Commercial Tax Tribunal to pass a new decision following the law, complying with the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, 2008, and Rule 63 of the Rules, 2008.

Case TitleM/S Rajansh Marble House
CitationSALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. – 39 of 2018
Date11.01.2024
Counsel for Revisionist: Rajesh Kumar Shukla Dr.
Counsel for Opposite Party: C.S.C.
Allahabad High CourtRead Order

Disclaimer:- "All the information given is from credible and authentic resources and has been published after moderation. Any change in detail or information other than fact must be considered a human error. The blog we write is to provide updated information. You can raise any query on matters related to blog content. Also, note that we don’t provide any type of consultancy so we are sorry for being unable to reply to consultancy queries. Also, we do mention that our replies are solely on a practical basis and we advise you to cross verify with professional authorities for a fact check."

Published by Arpit Kulshrestha
Arpit Kulshrestha seeks higher interests in financial services, taxation, GST, I-T, etc. Writes articles with depth knowledge and is extensive for the same. The resources provide effective articles for the products of SAG infotech which provides taxation and IT software. Writing from observations and researching makes his articles virtuous. View more posts
SAGINFOTECH PRODUCTS

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow Us on Google News

Google News

Latest Posts

New Offer for Professionals

Super Tax Offer

Upto 20% Off
Tax, ROC/MCA, XBRL, Payroll, Online GST

Limited Offer, Hurry

Big Offer for Tax Experts

Upto 20% Discount on Tax Software

    Select Product*

    Genius Software