Allahabad High Court
M/S Shahzad Masroor Jewellers vs The Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. ... on 16 November, 2016
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. - 25
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 23 of 2002
Applicant :- M/S Shahzad Masroor Jewellers
Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- M.Manglik
Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
In view of the affidavit of service, the service of notice upon the respondent is deemed sufficient.
Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist. No one appears on behalf of the respondent.
This revision has been filed beyond limitation by 25 days along with a delay condonation application and affidavit. Cause shown for delay in filing the revision is sufficient. Delay Condonation Application No. 3832 of 2012 is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is condoned.
This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 18.08.2011 in Second Appeal No. 233 of 2011 (2009-10) under Section 48(5) of the Act passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Moradabad Bench, Moradabad dismissing the appeal filed by the present revisionist.
By order dated 20.03.2010, the assessing authority imposed penalty of Rs. 19,486/- upon the assessee under Section 48(5) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. Against the said order the assessee preferred First Appeal No. 1233 of 2010 which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal)-I, Commercial Tax, Moradabad by order dated 02.12.2010. Against the said order, revisionist preferred Second Appeal No. 233 of 2011 before the tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Total disputed amount involved in this revision is Rs. 23,848/-.
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. has issued a Circular No. 1314107 dated 03.01.2014 which has been communicated to all the departmental authorities by letter no. 1794 dated 03.01.2014 which is reproduced below:
^^ifji= la0&1314107 fn0 03-01-2014
i= la0&okn&iqujh{k.k&2013&[email protected]@okf.kT; dj
dk;kZy; dfe'uj okf.kT; dj
¼okn&vuqHkkx½
mRrj izns'k
y[kuÅ %% fnukad % 03 tuojh 2014
1& leLr tksuy ,Mh'kuy dfe'uj]
okf.kT; dj] mRrj izns'kA
2& ,Mh'kuy dfe'uj xszM&1] ¼mPp U;k;ky; dk;Z½
okf.kT; dj] bykgkcknA
3& ,Mh'kuy dfe'uj xszM&2] ¼mPp U;k;ky; dk;Z½
okf.kT; dj] y[kuÅA
4& leLr TokbUV dfe'uj ¼dk;Zikyd½] okf.kT; dj]
mRrj izns'kA
fo"k; % mRrj izns'k ewY; laof/kZr dj vf/kfu;e] 2008 dh /kkjk 58&d ds vUrxZr ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k iqujh{k.k nk;j djus gsrq ekSfnzd lhek ds laca/k esaA
mRrj izns'k ewY; laof/kZr dj ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2013 ¼mRrj izns'k vf/kfu;e la[;k 18 lu 2013½ }kjk m0iz0 ewY; laof/kZr dj vf/kfu;e] 2008 esa ,d ubZ /kkjk 58&d iz[;kfir djrs gq, ;g izkfo/kku fd, x, gSa fd dfe'uj okf.kT; dj] jkT; ljdkj ds vuqeksnu ls le;≤ ij bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu okf.kT; dj izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk /kkjk 57 ds v/khu vihy ;k /kkjk 58 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k nk;j djus dks fofu;fer djus ds iz;kstukFkZ ekSfnzd lhek fu;r djus ds laca/k esa vkns'k] vuqns'k ;k funsZ'k bl vf/kfuu;"e ds v/khu izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks fuxZr dj ldrs gSaA
mDr laca/k esa 'kklukns'k la0 [email protected]&2&13&9 ¼208½@2013 fnukad 02 tuojh] 2014 }kjk iznRr vuqeksnu ds ifjizs{; esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa iqujh{k.k nk;j djus dks fofu;fer djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fookfnr dj @ vFkZn.M dh jkf'k dh U;wure ekSfnzd lhek fuEu 'krksZa ds v/khu :0 1]00][email protected]& vo/kkfjr dh tkrh gSA
¼1½ tgkWa fdlh okf.kT; dj izkf/kdkjh us /kkjk 58&d dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fuxZr vkns'kksa] vuqns'kksa ;k funsZ'kksa ds vuqlj.k esa fdlh dj fu/kkZj.k o"kZ ds fy, fdlh fu/kkZfjrh ds ekeys esa fdlh fcUnq ij /kkjk&58 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k iqujh{k.k nk;j ugha fd;k gS] ogkWa ,sls izkf/kdkjh dks mDr fcUnq ij /kkjk&58 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k gsrq fuEufyf[kr ds ekeys esa ckf/kr ugha djsxk&
¼d½ fdlh vU; dj fu/kkZj.k o"kZ gsrq mlh fu/kkZfjrh ds ekeys esa] ;k
¼[k½ mlh vFkok vU; dj fu/kkZj.k o"kZ gsrq fdlh vU; fu/kkZfjrh ds ekeys esaA
¼2½ bl rF; ds gksrs gq, Hkh fd fdlh okf.kT; dj izkf/kdkjh }kjk mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fuxZr vkns'kksa ;k vuqns'kkas ;k funsZ'kksa ds vuqlj.k esa /kkjk&58 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k nk;j ugha fd;k x;k gS] fdlh fu/kkZfjrh] tks ,slh /kkjk & 58 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k dh ikVhZ gS] ds fy, fof/k lEer ugha gksxk fd og ;g izfrokn dj lds fd okf.kT; dj izkf/kdkjh us /kkjk&58 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k nk;j u djus ds dkj.k fu.kZ; esa fookfnr fcUnq dks Lohdkj dj fy;k gSA
¼3½ mijksDrkuqlkj vo/kkfjr dj dh ekSfnzd jkf'k esa C;kt dh jkf'k dks ugha tksM+k tk,xkA ;fn C;kt dh ns;rk fookfnr gS] rHkh og fookfnr dj dh jkf'k esa lekfgr le>h tk,xhA vFkZn.M ds izdj.kksa esa fookfnr vFkZn.M dh jkf'k gh mDrkuqlkj mfYyf[kr ekSfnzd lhek dk vax gksxhA
¼4½ dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh lacaf/kr O;kikjh ds izR;sd dj fu/kkZj.k o"kZ ds fy, i`Fkd&i`Fkd fookfnr dj @ vFkZn.M dh jkf'k dk vkadyu djsaxs rFkk ftl dj fu/kkZj.k o"kZ @ o"kksaZ esa fookfnr dj @ vFkZn.M dh jkf'k mDr ekSfnzd lhek ls vf/kd gksxh dsoy mUgha ds laca/k esa iqujh{k.k dh dk;Zokgh dh tk,xhA
¼5½ ftu izdj.kksa esa ekSfnzd lhek ls fookfnr dj @ vFkZn.M dh jkf'k de gksxh muesa ;qfDr&;qDr dkj.kksa ds gksrs gq, vihy u fd, tkus dh n'kk esa lacaf/kr TokbaV dfe'uj ¼dk;Zikyd½ }kjk ;g fVIi.kh dh tk,xh fd ^^;|fi laxr izdj.k esa iz'uxr fu.kZ; Lohdk;Z ugha gS] rFkkfi iqujh{k.k dsoy bl dkj.k nk;j ugha fd;k tk jgk gS D;ksafd fookfnr dj @ vFkZn.M dh jkf'k bl gsrq fu/kkkZfjr ekSfnzd lhek ls de gSA^^
¼6½ fuEu izdj.kksa esa Hkys gh fookfnr dj @ vFkZn.M dh jkf'k ekSfnzd lhek ls de gks rc Hkh iqujh{k.k dh dk;Zokgh fof/kd vk/kkjksa ij dh tk,xh &
¼d½ ftu izdj.kksa esa vf/kfu;e ;k fu;ekoyh ds fdlh izkfo/kku dh oS/krk dks pqukSrh nh x;h gks% ;k
¼[k½ ftu izdj.kksa esa 'kklu dh fdlh foKfIr] 'kklukns'k ;k eq[;ky; ds ifji= dks pqukSrh nh x;h gksA
rnuqlkj dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr djsaA
g0 viBuh;
¼e`R;qat; dqekj ukjk;.k½
dfe'uj okf.kT; dj]
mRrj izns'kA^^
As per afore quoted circular, the State Government, by Government Order no. 1647/11-2-13-9(208)/2013 dated 02.01.2014 has taken a policy decision not to file revision before the High Court under Section 58 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 where the disputed amount of tax or penalty is less than Rs. 1 lac. In the present revision, the disputed amount is merely Rs. 23,848/- which is much below the monetary limit fixed by the State Government.
In view of the aforesaid, this revision is dismissed being below the monetary limit, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case.
Order Date :- 16.11.2016
IrfanUddin
