COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX U P LUCKNOW COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX U P LUCKNOW COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX U P LUCKNOW Vs. ATMA RAM MISRA:VEDBIR SINGH BHATTEWALE :BABU RAM RAJENDRA KUMAR
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX,UTTAR PRADESH,COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX,UTTAR PRADESH,LUCKNOW
ATMA RAM MISRA,VEDBIR SINGH BHATTEWALE,BABU RAM RAJENDRA KUMAR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)These three Special Leave Petitions can be disposed of together as they involve a common point. Notices of these petitions have been duly sent but there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner we grant leave and also proceed to dispose of the appeals.
(2.)The respondents in each of these cases were subjected to assessment under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The assessment years are different for the three cases being assessment years 1981-82, 1983-84 and 1982-83 respectively but this does not make any material difference. In each of the cases, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority and, along with the appeal, moved an application praying for the waiver of any deposit of tax which was necessary before the appeal could be entertained. But the first appellate authority, in two of the cases, dismissed the application. In the third he directed the assessee to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within ten days from the date of the order. Dissatisfied with the orders of the first appellate authority, each of the assessees preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in all the three cases, directed the assessee to pay 10% of the assessed tax before the appeal could be entertained.
(3.)Each of the assessees preferred a revision petition before the High Court. The learned single Judge who heard the revision petition in the main appeal preferred by Atma Ram Misra distinguished the earlier judgment of the Court in Vishamber Nath v. Commr. of Sales Tax, U. P., 1979 UPTC 1276 : (1979 Tax LR 1879) and held that the condition requiring deposit of tax was not applicable in the instant case as no returns at all had been filed by the assessee for the relevant assessment year and no turnover stood admitted by the assessees at any stage of the assessment proceedings. This was followed in the other two cases with the result that the first appellate authority was held bound to entertain the appeals of the assessees without calling upon it for deposit of any portion of the tax. It is this conclusion of the learned single Judge that is the subject matter of the present appeals.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.