Back
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Southern Petrochemical Industries Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Swaminathan – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Commercial Tax – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Om Prakash Shukla, J.
(1) Since common factual matrix arises in the above-captioned revisions and the parties are also the same, therefore, with the Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. -38 of 2023 and other connected revisions consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the above captioned revisions were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
(2) For the sake of convenience, the revisionist shall hereinafter be referred to as the assessee and the respondent shall hereinafter be referred to as the revenue.
(3) Sales/Trade Tax Revision Nos. 43, 44, 48, 52, 54 and 57 of 2023 are filed at the instance of the assessee, challenging the correctness of the common judgment and order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby Second Appeal Nos. 110, 109, 120, 108, 112, 116 of 2014 preferred by the assessee for the year 2004-05, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, respectively, in respect of demand of Sales Tax and Value Added Tax have been dismissed.
(4) Sales/Trade Tax Revisions No. 47, 51 of 2023 are directed against the common order dated 08.12.2016 pass
The judgment establishes that the Tribunal is the final authority on factual matters in tax assessments, and the High Court's review is limited to legal questions, emphasizing the importance of docum....
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.
Section 263 revision invalid where AO conducted adequate enquiry into purchases and applied mind; PCIT cannot substitute view merely deeming enquiry inadequate without specific error.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax cannot invoke Section 263 revisionary jurisdiction to override an Assessing Officer's assessment order where the AO has conducted valid inquiries and arrived ....
An order under Section 154 does not necessitate inquiries, and thus cannot be deemed erroneous under Section 263 without breaching statutory limits.
A mere recital of vague reasons would not be sufficient nor a matter like the present one where the aggrieved party has a right to know the reasons for the decision being taken either for or against ....
The failure to provide valid notice and opportunity to be heard constitutes a violation of natural justice, necessitating quashing of ex parte orders under the GST Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
