2026 (9) TMI 889

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Tax Tribunal, Kanpur in Second Appeal No. 47 of 2015 for Assessment Year 2008-09 arising out of proceedings initiated under Section 56(1) of U.P. VAT Act and Second Appeal No.46 of 2015 for Assessment Year 2008-09 arising out of proceedings initiated under Section 56(1) of U.P. Entry Tax Act. The present revision was admitted by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2016 on the following question of law: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the absence of any order of authorization by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, the Joint Commissioner (Executive), Commercial Tax, Etawah had any jurisdiction to exercise the revisional powers as contained under Section 56(1) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008? (b) Wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal was preferred. Thereafter, the Joint Commissioner (Executive), Commercial Tax, Etawah issued a notice dated 10.02.2014 under Section 56(2) of the U.P. VAT Act in respect of the order dated 29.05.2012, proposing to revise the same. A detailed reply was submitted by the revisionist; however, not being satisfied with the same, the Joint Commissioner (Executive), Commercial Tax, Etawah, by order dated 02.06.2014, revised the assessment order and enhanced the taxable turnover, thereby creating an additional liability of Rs. 4,27,879/-. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred, which was partly allowed by order dated 19.03.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revisions have been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the revisi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er raised before the authorities below and, therefore, the same cannot be pressed in the present revisional jurisdiction. He further supports the impugned orders. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, Court has perused the record. 8. The issue raised with regard to the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner (Executive) has admittedly been raised for the first time in the present revision. However, the issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter. If any order has been passed without jurisdiction, the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. The Supreme Court, in the case of Chandrika Misir and another v. Bhaiyalal, AIR 1973 SC 2391, has held that where the Court lacks jurisdiction, the plea of juris....