TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted and arise out of the same order. 3. The Tribunal, by its order dated 02 May 2016, concerning Sales Tax Reference No. 4 of 2023, referred the following questions: "(i) Whether on facts, circumstances and evidence on record, Tribunal was justified in holding that there was an error apparent on record in giving decision in Second Appeal No. 851 of 1999 on 7th June, 2007 although the Miscellaneous Application bearing No. 177 of 2002 dated 06/09/2002 filed by Revenue was not brought to the notice of Tribunal while deciding the matter on 07/6/2007 and to decide the matter on the basis of earlier decision in Second Appeal No. 1820 of 1997 dated 29/07/2000. (ii) Whether on facts, circumstances and evidence on record was Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ptember 2002. 8. The Tribunal disposed of the Second Appeal No. 851 of 1999 on 07 June 2007, but this disposal was without considering the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application. 9. Therefore, on 06 February 2009, the Revenue filed a Rectification Application urging recall of the Tribunal's Order dated 07 June 2007 and for a direction to dispose of the Second Appeal after considering the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application No. 177 of 2002. 10. The Tribunal, by order dated 16 February 2015, allowed the Rectification Application, modified the Second Appeal order dated 07 June 2007 and proceeded to even modify the First Appellate Authority's order dated 17 March 1999, restoring the demand of Rs. 1,58,91,300/- in relation to the implied s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal, by order dated 09 April 2015, has already dismissed the Miscellaneous Application No. 177 of 2002 filed by the Revenue, and against such order, no challenge is raised by the Revenue. Therefore, she pointed out that now there are two contradictory orders holding the field. 15. Mr Mishra, the learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the Revenue would be satisfied with the setting aside of the Tribunal's order dated 07 June 2007 and rehearing of Miscellaneous Application No. 177 of 2002 after giving full opportunity to all the parties. He, however, submitted that the order dated 09 April 2015 must be interfered with because the same was made in view of the Tribunal's earlier order dated 16 February 2015 granting the Revenue the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation on merits, thereby modifying the First and Second Appellate Authority's orders. From the record, we are satisfied that no proper opportunity was given to the Applicant to meet with the Revenue's case set out in the Miscellaneous Application. The order of 16 February 2015, to this extent, certainly requires interference. 21. Similarly, we are also satisfied that the order of 9 April 2015 made by the Tribunal must be set aside, even though the Revenue may not have formally challenged it. The learned counsel for the parties consented to the setting aside of this order because it is apparent that this order was made, given the order of 16 February 2015, under which the Revenue was already granted the reliefs claimed in Miscellaneous Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ef granted by that order of the Assessee has nothing to do with the relief sought by the Revenue in its Miscellaneous Application. However, with respect, we disagree with this submission. 26. In our opinion, the Tribunal should not have disposed of the Second Appeal No. 851 of 1999 without considering the Miscellaneous Application No. 177 of 2002, which was pending before the Tribunal at the time of disposal of the Second Appeal. The final hearing in the Second Appeal and the hearing on the Miscellaneous Application should have been taken up simultaneously. Accordingly, we set aside the order of 07 June 2007 and direct that the Second Appeal and the Miscellaneous Application be considered and disposed of simultaneously in accordance with....