Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Chhajuram Ram Kumar and Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSales Tax Revision Nos. 443 and 444 of 1981
Judge
Reported in[1983]53STC259(All)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentChhajuram Ram Kumar and Co.
Advocates:Standing Counsel
Cases ReferredU.P. v. Lal Chand
Excerpt:
- - lal chand 1982 stj 215. 3. in these circumstances, the disposal by the tribunal, with a single member, of the application containing the prayer for condonation of delay and also the appeal was bad......the applicant in these revisions under section 11(1) of the u.p. sales tax act is that the single member tribunal which disposed of the application made on his behalf for condonation of delay in the presentation of the appeal, and consequentially, the appeal itself was not competent to do so and that the decision rendered by the tribunal was without jurisdiction.2. it is not in dispute that the amount of tax involved in both the cases at the stage of appeal before the tribunal was in excess of rs. 5,000. such a matter was cognisable by a bench of the tribunal consisting of two members. that was bacaiise of the provision of section 10(10)(a) of the act. the legal position in this regard was laid down by this court in commissioner of sales tax, u.p. v. lal chand 1982 stj 215.3. in these.....
Judgment:

V.K. Mehrotra, J.

1. The grievance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., who is the applicant in these revisions under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is that the single member Tribunal which disposed of the application made on his behalf for condonation of delay in the presentation of the appeal, and consequentially, the appeal itself was not competent to do so and that the decision rendered by the Tribunal was without jurisdiction.

2. It is not in dispute that the amount of tax involved in both the cases at the stage of appeal before the Tribunal was in excess of Rs. 5,000. Such a matter was cognisable by a Bench of the Tribunal consisting of two members. That was bacaiise of the provision of Section 10(10)(a) of the Act. The legal position in this regard was laid down by this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Lal Chand 1982 STJ 215.

3. In these circumstances, the disposal by the Tribunal, with a single member, of the application containing the prayer for condonation of delay and also the appeal was bad.

4. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter remanded to it for reconsideration in accordance with law. Costs on parties.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //