Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (3) TMI 1474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ranted. Revision dismissed. - SALES/ TRADE TAX REVISION No. 305 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 10-10-2017 - Yashwant Varma, J. Bipin Kumar Pandey for the petitioner Shubham Agarwal for the respondents JUDGMENT Heard Sri B.K. Pandey learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. These two revisions call in question an order of the Tribunal dated 5 July 2017 dismissing applications made by the Department under Section 31 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act 2008 (VAT Act). It appears from the record that certain goods being transported by the respondents were apprehended by a mobile squad on 19 May 2016. The goods were seized on 25 May 2016. Against the order of seizure, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vers that the contents of the application under Section 31 are correct. He has thereafter further appended a document appearing at page 61 of the paper book which he describes to be an affidavit. Obviously and evidently as is clear from a mere perusal of the paper appearing at page 61, it is not an affidavit. The order dated 22 June 2016 while noticing appearance of parties unequivocally records the presence of G.P. Yadav. The submission of the departmental representative has also been noticed. It is in this backdrop that the Tribunal by the impugned order has proceeded to reject the application for recall. Pursuant to certain submissions which were advanced on this revision, the records of the two appeals which were decided by the Tribu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not appear on the order sheet cannot lead to this Court to infer that he was not heard. Recitals appearing in an order of a Court or other judicial authority are treated as being sacrosanct and a heavy and onerous burden stands placed upon a person who seeks to challenge and deny recitals contained therein. The only legally recognised procedure to assail such recitals is by way of rectification. Rectification by its very nature and character must be in accord with a procedure recognised in law and must be moved with due responsibility, caution and circumspection. The Revisionist would be well advised to bear in mind the following observations as made by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak (2 (1982) 2 SCC 463 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error . [Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhu Sudan Chowdhri v. Chandrabati Chowdhrain, AIR 1917 PC 30 : 42 IC 527] That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an appellate court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it, except before the Judge himself, but nowhere else. (emphasis supplied) In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that no proceedings for rectification as envisaged and recognised in law was adopted by the Department. If applications for rectification came to be made in the manner as evidenced by the facts of this case and were to be entertained and countenanced, it would give rise to pernicious possibilities. The course adopted by the respondents cannot possibly be approved by the Court since the application itself appears to have been made without due care and circumspection as was warranted. The revisions are misconceived and are accordingly dismissed. The original records which were summoned pursu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates