Appellate enhancement in tax appeals requires Revenue appeal or cross-objections; without them, tax liability cannot be increased.

An appellate authority under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 cannot enhance a dealer's tax liability or grant relief to the State in the dealer's appeal unless the Revenue has filed its own appeal or cross-objections. The statutory appeal scheme and Rule 65 were read to require notice and opportunity for the opposite side, but not to permit a worse outcome for the non-appealing party. Applying the settled principle that a party who does not appeal is ordinarily taken to accept the order, the Court held that enhancement without a Revenue appeal or cross-objections was beyond jurisdiction and the assessee succeeded on that issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appellate authority could enhance the tax liability or grant relief to the State in an appeal filed by the dealer, in the absence of an appeal or cross-objections by the Revenue.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the Rules was examined to determine the scope of appellate power. Section 33 of the Act permits appeal by the assessee and further appeal to the Tribunal by either side, while Section 33(8) authorises passing of a just and proper order on appeal, including enhancement. Rule 65 contemplates notice to the opposite authority and consideration of any representation or cross-objection. The Court applied the principle that a party not appealing is ordinarily taken to have accepted the order and cannot seek a worse result for the rival side in that appeal. Relying on the settled view that enhancement cannot be ordered without an appeal or cross-objections by the Revenue, the Court held that the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction to enhance the tax liability in the assessee's appeal.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. In the absence of an appeal or cross-objections by the Revenue, the appellate authority could not enhance the tax liability.

---