1. Revision against Tribunal's order under UP Trade Tax Act on question of law. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2007 Supreme(SC) 399
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
M/s Rashtriya Audyogik SansthanPETITIONER
versus
Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P.RESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 1538 of 2007
Decided on 22/03/2007
Revisional jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, is strictly limited to questions of law. Such questions must be precisely stated and formulated in the application; the High Court cannot exercise this power by re-appreciating evidence.
Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 - Section 11 - Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court - Limited to questions of law - Application for revision must precisely state the question of law involved - High Court cannot simpliciter re-appreciate evidence or ignore material documents to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
(B) Scope of Section 11 - The power to revise is conferred only when the case involves a question of law, which is required to be precisely stated and formulated. The exercise of jurisdiction under this section without formulating any question of law is impermissible.
Facts of the case:
Assessments for a specific assessment year were challenged and remitted for fresh assessment. Following orders from the Tribunal which set aside first appellate orders, the Revenue filed revision petitions before the High Court. The High Court allowed the revisions, set aside the orders of the Tribunal, and restored the orders of the first Appellate Authority, without specifically indicating the questions of law for determination.
Findings of Court:
The High Court failed to adhere to the provisions of the Act which confine its interference with the Tribunal's orders solely to questions of law. It was observed that the High Court cannot exceed its limited jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence instead of deciding a precisely formulated question of law.
Issues: Whether the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act without precisely formulating the questions of law involved in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act is limited strictly to questions of law. The statute mandates that the application for revision shall precisely state the question of law involved. In the absence of such a formulated question, the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to set aside the orders of the Tribunal.
Result: Impugned order set aside and matter remitted to the High Court to formulate questions of law, if any.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Revision without formulating question of law is impermissible. Revenue supported order noting basic issues considered. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 11 is limited to questions of law which must be precisely stated. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. Revision under Section 11 requires precise formulation of a question of law; High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence. (Para 9 )
5. What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act?
The High Court's jurisdiction is limited to deciding questions of law precisely stated, and it cannot re-appreciate evidence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
JUDGMENT
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21383-21384 of 2005)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court disposing of several revision petitions filed by the respondent-Commissioner of Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short Act).
The factual position which is almost undisputed is as under:
Two petitions for revision under Section 11 of the Act were filed before the High Court questioning correctness of the common order dated 28th May, 1997, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Agra (in short the Tribunal). The disputes related to the assessments for assessment year 1987-88 under the Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short the Central Act). Demands were raised by orders of the assessment dated 17.9.1993. The demands were challenged before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) II, Trade Tax, Agra who remitted the matter to the Tax Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. Appellant (hereinafter described as assessee) filed appeals before the Tribunal. The appeals were allowed and the first appellate orders dated 22.7.1996 were set aside. As noted above, Revenue filed two revision applications under Section 11 of the Act before the High Court. By the impugned order dated 20.5.2005, the revisions were allowed and the orders of the Tribunal were set aside and that of the first Appellate Authority restored.
Though many points were urged in support of the appeals it was primarily contended that without formulating any question of law, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act was impermissible.
The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the order of the High Court saying that though the questions have not been specifically indicated the basic issues for determination were taken note of and the impugned orders were passed.
We shall first deal with the power of the High Court in dealing with the revision petition. Section 11 of the Act reads as follows:
"11. Revision by High Court in special cases. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of Section 10, other than an order under sub-section (2) of that section summarily disposing of the appeal, or by an order passed under Section 22 by the Tribunal, may, within ninety days from the date of service of such order, apply to the High Court for revision of such order on the ground that the case involves any question of law.
(2) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Revising Authority or an Additional Revising Authority refusing to state the case under this section, as it stood immediately before April 27, 1978, hereinafter referred to as the said date, may, where the limitation for making an application to the High Court under sub-section (4), as it stood immediately before the said date, has not expired, likewise apply for revision to the High Court within a period of ninety days from the said date.
(3) Where an application under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3), as they stood immediately before the said date, was rejected by the Revising Authority or an Additional Revising Authority on the sole ground that the period of one hundred and twenty days for making the reference, as specified in the said sub-section (1), has expired, such applicant may apply for revision of the order made under sub-section (2) of Section 10, to the High
Court within sixty days from the said date on the ground that the case involves any question of law.
(4) The application for revision under sub-section (1) shall precisely state the question of law involved in the case, and it shall be competent for the High Court to formulate the question of law or to allow any other question of law to be raised.
(5) Every application for making a reference to the High Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3), as they stood immediately before the said date, pending before the Revising Authority or an
