Court No. - 33 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 573 of 2010 Petitioner :- S/S Lalji & Company Respondent :- The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow Petitioner Counsel :- Aloke Kumar Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard Sri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the
assessee/revisionist and Sri B.K.Pandey, learned Standing
Counsel.
With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter has been
heard finally and is being disposed of.
The assessee/revisionist is a registered dealer of Iron-sheets and
Bearing Scrap. For the assessment year 1999-2000 the accounts
books of the assessee have been rejected and taxable turnover was
assessed vide order dated 20.3.2002. Against the said order he
preferred an appeal which was partly allowed. The rejection of the
accounts books was maintained but the tax liability was reduced
by Rs.26,877.83. The said order was challenged in second appeal
before the tribunal by both the assessee/revisionist as well as the
department. The appeal of the assessee/revisionist has been
dismissed whereas that of the department has been allowed by the
tribunal vide order dated 28.4.2010.
The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist/assessee is
that the tribunal has not assigned any reason for rejecting the
appeal of the assessee/revisionist or for allowing the appeal of the
department and that the order by which the penalty was
considerably reduced was produced before the tribunal but the
same was not considered.
A perusal of the order of the tribunal dated 28.4.2010 reveals that
though reasons for dismissing the appeal of the assessee/revisionist
have been assigned but the effect of the order of the tribunal
reducing penalty was not considered even though it was placed on
record. In allowing the appeal of the department the only reason
recorded is that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the same.
However, what are the sufficient grounds have not been spelled
out in the order. Moreover, the finding of the first appellate
authority by which the tax liability was reduced has not been
specifically set aside and no reasons for disagreeing with the same
have been assigned. In the absence of such a finding or any reason,
the tribunal could not have legally upheld the order of the
assessing authority ignoring that of the first appellate authority.
In view of above, the order of the tribunal stand vitiated for non-
consideration of the material on record and being uninformed of
the reasons.
Accordingly, the order of the tribunal dated 28.4.2010 is set aside
and the matter is remanded to the tribunal for decision afresh, in
accordance with law within a period of three months.
Revision is allowed as above. No costs.
Order Date :- 19.7.2010
BK