BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

In these appeals under section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") the following substantial questions of law arise for our consideration:-

1. Where on the expiry of time specified in section 74(7) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 the Commissioner has not exercised either of the options set out in section 74(7)(a) or 74(7)(b), whether the objection pending before the commissioner shall be deemed to be allowed ?

2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in providing a mandatory period of eight months, within which the Commissioner has to dispose of the objection pending before him under section 74(7) of DVAT Act, particularly, when no such stipulation is provided by the statute ?

In STA 12/2008 (Behl Construction), the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), by virtue of the its decision dated 24.04.2008 in Appeal No. 402/ATVAT/06-07, though it decided against the dealer/assessee on facts, inter alia held on law that : (a) the provisions of section 74(7) of the said Act are directory and not mandatory; (b) if no notice of 15 days is given as provided under sub-section (8) of section 74, the objection cannot be kept pending indefinitely by the objection hearing authority; (c) The legislative intent is abundantly clear from a harmonious reading of sub-sections (7), (8) & (9) of section 74 of the said Act that the objection must be decided within a maximum period of eight months. The revenue is aggrieved by these conclusions of law.

In STA 13/2008 (Aravali Aluminium), the Tribunal, by virtue of its order dated 22.05.2008, followed its order dated 24.04.2008 in the case of Behl Construction and reiterated that if the objections are not decided within a period of 8 months, even if the notice of 15 days has not been given by the objector to the objection hearing authority, the objections would be deemed to have been allowed, as in such a situation, the objections cannot be kept pending for an indefinite period and must be decided within a reasonable time. The Tribunal observed that in the case of Behl Construction it had determined the reasonable period to be eight (8) months. In Aravali Aluminium, since the objections were decided after a period of more than nine (9) months, the Tribunal held that the objections were deemed to have been allowed. The revenue is aggrieved by this.

Some facts may be necessary. In Behl Construction, the dealer/assessee, being aggrieved by an order of penalty passed by the Value Added Tax Officer (VATO), filed its objections to the same under section 74 of the said Act on 21.09.2005. The Joint Commissioner issued a notice dated 19.12.2005 extending the time to consider the objections by a period of two (2) months. The objections were ultimately rejected by the Joint Commissioner by his order dated 20.03.2006. Being aggrieved, the dealer/assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and contended that the order passed by the Joint Commissioner was beyond time and the objections ought to be deemed to have been allowed. It was argued on behalf of the dealer/assessee that the period of limitation for considering objections was three (3) months in the first instance and, after the two month extension under the first proviso to section 74(7), even the period of five months had expired before the order dated 20.03.2006 was passed. It is pertinent to note that though the dealer/assessee could have issued a notice under section 74(8) requiring the Joint Commissioner to decide upon the objections, it did not do so. The Tribunal, as mentioned above, rejected the pleas of the dealer/assessee but, did so by holding that the objections under section 74 could be disposed of within eight (8) months and, irrespective of whether the dealer/assessee gave or did not give a notice as contemplated under section 74(8) of the said Act, if the order disposing the objections was not passed within these