Case Law Details
Automark Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Allahabad High Court)
One of the main planks of the arguments submitted by the revisionist before this Court is that their matter was remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh in pursuance to which the impugned order has been passed. It has been submitted that the Tribunal did not inform the revisionist about listing of the said case and during the said period COVID 19 Pandemic was at its peak and, hence, the petitioner could not know the proceedings and was not informed about the date of hearing and consequently he could not be present before the Tribunal on the date of hearing and, hence, without giving any opportunity of hearing or considering the version of the petitioner the impugned order has been passed.
On examination of rival contentions, this Court is of considered view that though the registry of Commercial Tax Tribunal had issued notice but the same was not served on the revisionists and they remained unrepresented before the Tribunal. It is further noticed that their non-appearance was not intentional or deliberate and, hence, it will be in fitness of things that the revisionist is permitted to place his arguments / contentions before the Tribunal and the Tribunal may also take into consideration such arguments before coming to conclusion with regard to issues engaging the Tribunal in the present case.
For the reasons aforesaid the order dated 19.1.2021 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to Commercial Tax Tribunal for a fresh determination and such determination be done expeditiously.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri H. G. Dharmadhikari along with Sri Vaibhav Krishna for the revisionists as well as Sri Sanjay Sarin on behalf of the revenue.
2. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all these revisions, hence, they are being decided by this common judgment and order.
3. By means of the present revision the revisionists have assailed the order of Commercial Tax Tribunal Bench-II, Lucknow dated 19.1.2021. It has been stated that the revisionists are manufacturers of Thermoplastic Road Marking Material which is manufactured by using various chemicals like Resin, Titanium dioxide, and calcium carbonate and is distinguishable from ‘paint’. It is stated that the revenue has treated the said product to be a ‘paint’ and assessed and taxed the revisionist accordingly.
4. One of the main planks of the arguments submitted by the revisionist before this Court is that their matter was remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh in pursuance to which the impugned order has been passed. It has been submitted that the Tribunal did not inform the revisionist about listing of the said case and during the said period COVID 19 Pandemic was at its peak and, hence, the petitioner could not know the proceedings and was not informed about the date of hearing and consequently he could not be present before the Tribunal on the date of hearing and, hence, without giving any opportunity of hearing or considering the version of the petitioner the impugned order has been passed.
5. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has contested this fact and submits that the Registrar of the Tribunal has sent a notice of service in accordance with law in the year 2019 and hence it cannot be said that there is any laxity on part of the Tribunal in proceeding to decide the appeal.
6. The revisionist, on the other hand, has submitted that during that period the office of the revisionist had been shifted from Kailash Plaza, Plot No.18 Sector G, L.D.A., Kanpur Road, Lucknow to Plot No.35-B, Gata No.3, Sikdndarabagh, Banthra, Lucknow, U.P. and they had already informed the department about the change of address but this fact was admittedly not brought to the knowledge of the Tribunal. Therefore, it is clear that the appeal has been decided and impugned judgment has been passed without hearing the revisionist.
7. On examination of rival contentions, this Court is of considered view that though the registry of Commercial Tax Tribunal had issued notice but the same was not served on the revisionists and they remained unrepresented before the Tribunal. It is further noticed that their non-appearance was not intentional or deliberate and, hence, it will be in fitness of things that the revisionist is permitted to place his arguments / contentions before the Tribunal and the Tribunal may also take into consideration such arguments before coming to conclusion with regard to issues engaging the Tribunal in the present case.
8. For the reasons aforesaid the order dated 19.1.2021 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to Commercial Tax Tribunal for a fresh determination and such determination be done expeditiously.
9. With the consent of the parties, it is provided that the matter shall be listed before the Tribunal on 21.11.2022 and the revisionist shall appear before the Tribunal on the said date and press their appeal accordingly. The Tribunal shall proceed to decide the same expeditiously and as far as possible before 23rd December,2022 in accordance with law.
10. Needless to say that further proceedings taken by the respondents shall follow the fresh determination made by the Tribunal.
The revisions are thus allowed.
