9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1989 (2) TMI 115 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether a revision shall lie to the High Court from the decision of the Commissioner under Section 35 of the Act which has been the subject-matter of an appeal before the Tribunal? Held that - Having regard to the scheme manifested from the amendment that is to say to make the Commissioner s decision final subject to an appeal to the Tribunal where the Tribunal is enjoined to hear such an appeal by a bench of three members and where revision is provided only in special cases in our opinion it would be improper to interpret the spirit and reason of that law in such a way as to enjoin that a further revision lay to the High Court under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore the High Court was right that no further revision in such a situation lie to the High Court. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of sub-section (5) of Section 35 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. 2. Nature of the Commissioner's decision under Section 35. 3. Whether a revision lies to the High Court from the Tribunal's decision. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of sub-section (5) of Section 35 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948: The primary issue in these appeals is the interpretation of sub-section (5) of Section 35 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The question is whether a revision lies to the High Court from the decision of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, which has been the subject of an appeal before the Tribunal. The High Court examined the scheme of the Act and the amendments introduced by U.P. Act 12 of 1979. The High Court concluded that no further revision lies to the High Court from the Tribunal's decision, as sub-section (5) of Section 35 states that the decision of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, subject to an appeal to the Tribunal, shall be final. The High Court referred to the decision in Indo Lube Refiners v. Sales Tax Officer, Sector-1, Gorakhpur [(1987) 66 STC 145], which supported this view. 2. Nature of the Commissioner's decision under Section 35: The High Court and the Supreme Court both addressed the nature of the Commissioner's decision under Section 35. The High Court observed that the Commissioner did not act as a tribunal while dealing with an application under Section 35, and the nature of his jurisdiction is administrative. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this view, stating that the language of Section 35 enjoins a decision by the Commissioner, which envisages that the decision is quasi-judicial or judicial and cannot be characterized as administrative. The Supreme Court emphasized that the decision of the Commissioner under Section 35 is binding and final, subject to an appeal to the Tribunal. 3. Whether a revision lies to the High Court from the Tribunal's decision: The Supreme Court examined whether a further revision lies to the High Court from the Tribunal's decision. The Court noted that Section 11 of the Act, as amended, provides for revision by the High Court in special cases. However, the Court emphasized that sub-section (5) of Section 35, after the amendment, states that the decision of the Commissioner of Sales Tax shall be final, subject to an appeal to the Tribunal. The Court concluded that the scheme of the Act does not contemplate a further revision to the High Court against a decision of the Tribunal. The Supreme Court referred to the legislative intent and the natural meaning of the words used in the Act. The Court held that the High Court was correct in concluding that no further revision lies to the High Court in such a situation. However, the Court noted that the High Court could exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in appropriate cases. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that no further revision lies to the High Court from the Tribunal's decision under Section 35 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The appeals were dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
