2020 (6) TMI 211 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court overrules Appellate judgments for Rule violation, reinstates Appeal for fair adjudication process

M/s Nathuram Bajaj Eit Bhatta, Ummedpur, Etah Versus The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow

The Allahabad High Court set aside the judgments and orders of the Appellate Courts due to the violation of Rule 63(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, ... Maintainability of revision - violation of Rule 63(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 - HELD THAT:- The conduct of the appellant has not been up to the mark. He should have appeared before the Courts where he had filed the appeals - In the event, no appearance is there, the Courts have no other option but to decide the cases summarily. At the same time I also find that the Appellate Courts have not adhered to the Rule 63(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008. The First Appeal being First Appeal No.2 of 2015 is restored to its original number and the applicant shall appear and argue the case and thereafter the First Appellate Court shall decide the appeal on merits as per the provisions of Rule 63 (5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008. The First Appeal shall be fixed for 8.4.2020 - Revision allowed. Issues Involved: Violation of Rule 63(5) of U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 in judgments and orders of Appellate CourtAnalysis:The judgment delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J. of the Allahabad High Court addressed the issue of violation of Rule 63(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 in the judgments and orders of the Appellate Court. The Revision was entertained based on this question of law, highlighting that the Appellate Court's decisions were made in contravention of the said rule. The counsel for the Revisionist argued that even if the appellant did not appear, the point for determination should have been addressed. On the other hand, the counsel for the Department contended that in the absence of the appellant, the Courts had to proceed with the cases and that there was no provision for dismissing appeals in default under the Act.The Hon'ble Court observed that the conduct of the appellant was not satisfactory as they failed to appear before the Courts where the appeals were filed. While acknowledging that in the absence of appearance, the Courts had to decide the cases summarily, it was also noted that the Appellate Courts did not adhere to Rule 63(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008. In the interest of justice, the judgments and orders of the First Appellate Court and the Second Appellate Court were set aside. The First Appeal was restored to its original number, and the applicant was directed to appear and argue the case, following which the First Appellate Court would decide the appeal on merits in accordance with the provisions of Rule 63(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008. The First Appeal was scheduled to be heard on 8.4.2020.Furthermore, the effectiveness of the order was made conditional upon the Applicant depositing Rs. 5000 before the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, with proof of deposit to be presented before the First Appellate Court. With these directives, the Revision was allowed, providing a pathway for the proper adjudication of the appeal in compliance with the relevant rules and ensuring the appellant's participation in the proceedings for a just outcome.