UTTAR PRADESH VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2008

Section 48(5)

Penalty under section 48(5) - Validity of - Direction of Tribunal given for remand proceedings to conduct enquiry in a particular manner, whether justified -

Issue arose for consideration as to whether Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in remanding the matter back on those grounds which were neither taken by assessing authority while framing the penalty order nor was pleaded before the 1st Appellate Authority. Held: Once Tribunal had set aside the order of the first appeal authority, Tribunal should have left open to the first appeal authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. However, to dictate to the subordinate authority the manner in which an enquiry is to be done, especially in a case such as of assessee where merely an incomplete enquiry has been made, may often stifle the parties to their prejudice in the proceedings on remand. Therefore, issue was left open to the first appeal authority to pass an order upon making such complete enquiry on the basis of plea and evidence that may be brought before it by assessee as also the revenue. However, submission advanced by assessee that a new case was set up, was not correct.

REFERRED : The Commissioner, Commercial Tax LKO v. Sanjay Steel Suppliers, R.G. Suppliers, Maheshwari Steel Traders, Ganpati Trading Co., Aster Steel and Iron (P) Ltd., Sohan Traders, Prashant Industrial Corporation, in (Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 253, 254, 255, 256, 324, 319, 312, 310, 302, 295, 284 of 2015, dt. 17-7-2015), United Wheels (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Sales Tax in (Sales Tax Revision No. 663 of 1991, dt. 2-4-2003), and GD. Steels & Gases (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Trade Tax, UP., Lucknow (1999) 115 STC 491 (All)

FAVOUR : Partly in assessee's favour

A.Y. :

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT