Allahabad High Court Quashes Commercial Tax Tribunal's Judgement for non-compliance with Rule 63(5) of the U.P.V.A.T. Rules, 2008

Allahabad High Court Quashes Commercial Tax Tribunal's Judgement for non-compliance with Rule 63(5) of the U.P.V.A.T. Rules, 2008

The Allahabad High Court has quashed the judgment of the Commercial Tax Tribunal due to failure to adhere to Rule 63(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 (U.P.V.A.T. Rules). The court observed that the Tribunal did not comply with the requirement for written judgments and appeals to include specified elements such as points for determination, decisions, and reasons for the decisions, as outlined in the said rule.

The revision was filed to challenge the judgment and order issued by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, U.P., specifically concerning the second appeal filed by the revisionist.

Section 57(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act 2008 (U.P. V.A.T. Act) stipulates that if the Tribunal has not already dismissed the appeal under Section 57(7) of the Act, 2008, it may, after calling for and examining relevant records and providing the parties with reasonable opportunities of being heard, proceed with the appeal. Alternatively, Section 56(5) outlines the manner and procedure for the summary disposal of appeals as prescribed. Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008 mandates that judgments and appeals be in writing, articulating the points for determination, the decision made, and the rationale behind it.

The revisionist argued that the Tribunal failed to specify the points for determination or provide any decision after acknowledging the points for determination as well as the reasons for the decision. As a result, the judgment would be deemed to contravene the mandatory provisions of Section 57(8), in conjunction with 57(5), and Rule 63(5).

The court held that the failure to comply with these provisions would not be a mere irregularity but would render the judgment nugatory. Upon reviewing the impugned judgment of the Tribunal in the context of the provisions of Section 57(8) and Section 57(5) of the Act, 2008, along with Rule 63(5) of the Rules, 2008, it was evident that the Tribunal had erred.

The court observed that the tribunal neither noted the points for determination nor provided reasons for its decision thereon. Although certain reasons were indicated in the judgment, it was insufficient to comply with Rule 63(5) of the Rules, 2008.

The court, while allowing the revision, remitted the matter to the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal to pass a fresh decision in accordance with the law, complying with the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, 2008, and Rule 63 of the Rules, 2008.