Statutory appeal limits and saved tribunal jurisdiction under VAT law determine which forum can hear the tax appeal.

The text explains that under section 74(1) of the Daman and Diu Value Added Tax Regulation, 2005, the appellate scheme permits only one appeal, so a second appeal before the Commissioner is not maintainable and is without jurisdiction. It also states that, until an Appellate Tribunal is constituted or notified under section 73(1), the Administrative Tribunal continued to exercise appellate jurisdiction because earlier notifications were preserved by the saving provisions and were not shown to have been superseded. The practical effect described is that the matter must be heard by the Administrative Tribunal, without any determination on the merits of the assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner of Value Added Tax had jurisdiction under section 74(1) of the Daman and Diu Value Added Tax Regulation, 2005 to entertain a second appeal against an appellate order. (ii) Whether the Administrative Tribunal functioning under the 1965 enactment continued to have jurisdiction as the Appellate Tribunal under section 73(1) of the Daman and Diu Value Added Tax Regulation, 2005 until a tribunal was constituted or notified under that Regulation.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner of Value Added Tax had jurisdiction under section 74(1) of the Daman and Diu Value Added Tax Regulation, 2005 to entertain a second appeal against an appellate order.

Analysis: Section 74(1) provided a limited appellate structure. The proviso expressly stated that only one appeal shall be made by a person against any assessment, decision or order. The language of clause (b) did not create a second appellate forum against an order passed in appeal under clause (a). Since the right of appeal is statutory, the Commissioner could not assume jurisdiction beyond what the Regulation clearly conferred.

Conclusion: The second appeal before the Commissioner was not maintainable and the impugned order was without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the Administrative Tribunal functioning under the 1965 enactment continued to have jurisdiction as the Appellate Tribunal under section 73(1) of the Daman and Diu Value Added Tax Regulation, 2005 until a tribunal was constituted or notified under that Regulation.

Analysis: The Regulation required constitution of an Appellate Tribunal, but the Government had not constituted one under section 73(1). The earlier notifications conferring appellate powers on the Administrative Tribunal under the repealed sales tax regime were saved by section 106 of the Regulation and section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Those notifications were not shown to have been superseded, and the repeal did not create a vacuum. The Administrative Tribunal therefore continued to function as the appellate forum until a tribunal was constituted or otherwise notified under the new regime.

Conclusion: The Administrative Tribunal retained jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded on jurisdiction. The Commissioner's appellate order was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be placed before the Administrative Tribunal for decision according to law, without any adjudication on the merits of the assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute expressly limits an appeal to one stage, a second appeal cannot be inferred, and saved notifications under repeal and savings provisions continue to operate until lawfully superseded or replaced.

---