Failure to consider material evidence on lease existence vitiates eligibility decision and requires fresh consideration.

The Allahabad HC held that an order rejecting review and restricting an eligibility certificate was unsustainable where the Committee failed to consider material evidence on the existence and commencement of a lease for eligibility under section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The petitioner's reliance on an earlier unregistered lease deed, a later registered deed, a supplementary deed, notarisation and rent payments had to be examined together. The absence of an express reference to the earlier deed in the registered deed did not, by itself, negate prior execution. Because relevant contentions and circumstances were not considered, the order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting the review application and restricting the eligibility certificate was vitiated because the Committee failed to consider the petitioner's case regarding the earlier unregistered lease deed, the registered lease deed and the supplementary deed.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether a lease was in existence on the date of first sale so as to satisfy the conditions for eligibility under section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The petitioner relied on an unregistered deed, a subsequent registered deed, a supplementary deed clarifying the commencement date, notarisation and payment of rent by cheque. The impugned order rested mainly on the absence of a reference to the earlier deed in the later registered deed. That reasoning was insufficient, because the absence of such reference did not by itself rule out execution of the earlier deed. The Committee also failed to examine whether the registered deed and supplementary deed, read together, established commencement from the relevant date. Since vital contentions and material circumstances were not considered, the order could not stand.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was required to be quashed. The matter was remitted to the Divisional Level Committee for fresh consideration of the review application.

Ratio Decidendi: An order is vitiated where the authority fails to consider material evidence and relevant contentions bearing on statutory eligibility, and such non-consideration warrants remand for fresh decision.

---