Mandatory formulation of points for determination under appellate rules can invalidate non-compliant orders and justify restoration.

Non-compliance with the mandatory requirement to frame and decide the point for determination under Rule 63(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 can render an appellate order unsustainable. The High Court noted that, even if the appellant remained absent, the appellate forum was still bound to decide the appeal in the prescribed manner. Because the appellate orders did not adhere to Rule 63(5), interference was warranted and the first appeal was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate orders were liable to be set aside for non-compliance with Rule 63(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 and whether the first appeal was required to be restored for decision on merits.

Analysis: The revision challenged the appellate orders on the ground that the point for determination was not framed and decided as required by Rule 63(5). The Court noted that although the appellant had remained absent, the appellate forums were still required to decide the appeal in accordance with the prescribed rule. The appellate orders were found not to have adhered to Rule 63(5), and the interests of justice warranted interference. The Court also directed restoration of the first appeal to its original number for fresh adjudication on merits.

Conclusion: The appellate orders were set aside and the first appeal was restored for fresh decision on merits in accordance with Rule 63(5).

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, and the matter was sent back to the first appellate court for a merits-based disposal after restoration of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellate court does not comply with the mandatory requirement to formulate and decide the point for determination, the resulting order cannot stand and the appeal may be restored for fresh adjudication on merits.

---