The provisions of Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008 and Section 57(8) of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008 are mandatory, and failure to comply with these provisions renders the judgment nugatory.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Dr R. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2.

2. The instant revision has been filed raising a challenge to judgment and order dated 19.03.2018 passed by learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, U.P. to the extent it relates to Second Appeal No. 68 of 2017 (A.Y. 2011-12) filed by the revisionist. Substantial questions of law have been set forth in the revision.

3. This Court vide the order dated 03.05.2018 had admitted the revision on two substantial questions of law namely:

"(1) Whether, the judgment & order dated 19.3.2018 passed by learned Commercial Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 68 of 2017 (2011-12) is vitiated due to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions laid down under Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008 read with Section 57(8) of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008.

(5) the principle of best judgment assessment can be resorted to on the basis of presumption and surmises, without any material on record."

4. The Court heard learned counsel for the revisionist on the first substantial question of law which is:

"(1) Whether, the judgment & order dated 19.3.2018 passed by learned Commercial Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 68 of 2017 (2011-12) is vitiated due to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions laid down under Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008 read with Section 57(8) of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008."

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that Section 57(8) of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 2008) provides that the Tribunal may, if it has not already dismissed the appeal under Section 57(7) of the Act 2008, after calling for and examining relevant records and after giving the parties reasonable opportunities of being heard or as the case may be after following the procedures prescribed under Section 57(5) (a) confirm the order, (b) set aside the order and (c) order such amount of tax to be refunded.

6. Section 56(5) of the Act, 2008 provides the manner and procedure of summary disposal of appeal to be as may be prescribed.

7. Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2008) provides that a judgment and appeal shall be in writing and shall state (a) the points for determination, (b) the decision thereon and (c) the reason for such decision.

8. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ved Ram Vs Harish Chandra and another, 2005 (23) LCD 604 the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the provisions of Rule 63(5) of the Rules, 2008 are akin to Order 41 Rule 31 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which have been held to be mandatory by this Court in the case of Ved Ram (Supra).

9. Drawing attention of this Court towards the judgment of learned Tribunal, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the revision, the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that learned Tribunal has neither indicated the points for determination nor given any decision after noting the said points for determination or the reasons for such decision and consequently the impugned judgment would be against mandatory provisions of Section 57(8) read with 57(5) of the Act, 2008 and Rule 63(5) of the Rules 2008.

10. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has supported the judgment and order passed by learned Tribunal.

11. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

12. From a perusal of record it emerges that the appeal filed by the revisionist namely Second Appeal No. 68 of 2017 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 has been dismissed by learned Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 19.03.2018.

13. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the provisions of Section 57(8), Section 57(5) of the Act, 2008 and Rule 63(5) of the Rules 2008 the judgment of learned Tribunal in appeal has to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for such decision.

14. For t