TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Sales Tax Tribunal Order Quashed, Matter Remitted for Reconsideration. Procedural Compliance Emphasized</h1> <h3>Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. Versus State of Orissa</h3> Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. Versus State of Orissa - [2013] 66 VST 510 (Ori) Issues involved:Challenge to order of Sales Tax Tribunal dismissing second appeal for failure to submit declaration forms; Interpretation of rule 61 of Orissa Sales Tax Rules regarding submission of additional evidence before Tribunal.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a sales tax revision where the appellant challenged an order of the Sales Tax Tribunal dismissing their second appeal for failing to submit declaration forms, specifically form IV for sales to a company. The first appellate authority had concluded the assessment based on this non-submission. The appellant argued that the inability to submit the forms was unintentional and beyond their control, and they submitted the forms during the second appeal. The Tribunal, however, proceeded as if the forms were never provided, without giving reasons for non-acceptance. The standing counsel for the Commercial Tax Department contended that the additional evidence was submitted without the necessary petition under rule 61 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules. The court noted that no petition under rule 61 was filed, and submissions in the memo of appeal were insufficient. Citing relevant case law, the court emphasized the importance of following procedural rules for submitting additional evidence.The court quoted rule 61 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, which outlines the conditions for submitting fresh evidence before the Tribunal. The court referred to a previous judgment highlighting the importance of providing sufficient cause for non-production of declaration forms at the assessment stage, allowing for their submission at the first appellate stage or even as additional evidence before the Tribunal, subject to compliance with rule 61. The court emphasized the need for following procedural requirements for submitting additional evidence before the Tribunal.In light of the arguments presented and the legal precedents cited, the court quashed the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back for reconsideration. The appellant was granted liberty to file a petition under rule 61 for submitting additional evidence, which the Tribunal was directed to consider strictly in accordance with the law. The court clarified that its decision did not express any opinion on the case's merits and instructed the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter afresh. To expedite the process, the appellant was given a deadline to file the necessary documents, and the Tribunal was instructed to dispose of the appeal promptly within three months of receiving the application. The court also directed the provision of copies of the order to the concerned parties for compliance.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the procedural aspect of submitting additional evidence before the Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of following the rules and providing sufficient cause for non-compliance. The court's decision aimed to ensure a fair reconsideration of the case while expediting the process to avoid further delays.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
