Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist should vs He further submits that after closure of the business at Meerut, the left over

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned ACSC for the State. The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated

28.09.2021 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2008-09 under the UP VAT Act. The above-noted revision was admitted by this Court vide order dated

07.01.2022 on the following question of law:- "A. Whether the Tribunal and the appellate erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority, when the service of the assessment order was not valid in terms of Rule 72 of the U.P. VAT Rules, 2008 and at any rate, the reasons for delay were satisfactorily explained by the revisionist? B. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in deciding the appeal without examining the reasons for delay but by considering only the period of delay, when the delay was sufficiently explained by the revisionist and non-condonation of delay will lead to confirmation of demand of tax which otherwise is not legally payable? " Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the first appeal filed by the revisionist was beyond the period of limitation for which due explanation was furnished. He further submits that the revisionist was having its registration at Meerut as well as in Haryana, but due to unforeseen circumstances, business at Meerut was closed and all closing stocks were 2 STRE No. 18 of 2022 transferred to Haryana. He further submits that the earlier counsel, Shri Bharat Bhushan, Advocate, who received the order, had neither intimated the revisionist, nor taken appropriate action for filing the appeal, and therefore, first appeal could not be filed within limitation by the revisionist. Thereafter, the revisionist requested another counsel, Shri Manu Rishi, Advocate for taking back the order and all papers from Shri Bharat Bhushan, Advocate, but he refused to do so and therefore, further delay occurred in filing the first appeal. He further submits that the first appellate court, instead of condoning the delay in preferring the first appeal, has dismissed the appeal on the ground of laches, against which second appeal was preferred, which has also been dismissed without considering the material available on record. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist should not be suffered due to fault on the part of the counsel. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Rani Rewati Devi Ravi Pratap Nyas & Another Vs. Administrator General, UP & 22 Others [Special Appeal (Defective) No. 115/2024, decided on 03.07.2024]. He further submits that after closure of the business at Meerut, the left over stocks were transferred to Haryana, for which no form F could be submitted, but by other cogent material, the movement of goods, other than the sale outside the U.P., could be proved. Therefore, the matter requires consideration on merits. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the appeal was not decided on merit, but on a technical ground of lache. The delay has been explained showing inaction on the part of the earlier counsel of the revisionist. Laying down the settled principle, that the client cannot be punished for wrongdoing or inaction on the part of the counsel, the Division Bench of this Court in Rani Rewati Devi Ravi Pratap Nyas (supra) has held as under:- "17. From the above facts, it is more than apparent that insofar as the appellant is concerned, she has acted as a prudent person in approaching the counsel, getting the appeal prepared in time and in relying on the counsel that needful regarding the filing 3 STRE No. 18 of 2022 for which her presence is not necessary would be done by the counsel. As the counsel for whatever reason chose not to file the same and/or genuinely forgot to file the appeal, the litigant cannot be made to suffer on account of conduct/inaction of the counsel. The allegations made regarding filing of incorrect affidavit cannot be used against the appellant inasmuch as even in believing the version of the counsel for the delay in filing the appeal, the appellant had acted as a prudent person, however, once the inaction came to light, she has taken a stand, changed the counsel and has filed affidavit disclosing the facts as noticed herein before, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant has approached this Court with unclean hands.

18. In so far as the indication made in the affidavits/Aadhar Cards of two different addresses, one at Padrauna and the other is at Varanasi is concerned, the same by itself does not lead to anything. Though an explanation has been given that due to change in place of residence, a fresh Aadhar card has been got prepared indicating Varanasi as the place of residence.

19. So far as the judgements cited by the learned counsel for the parties are concerned, the principles laid down therein are well settled wherein while a client cannot be punished for the wrong doing/inaction of the counsel, in case it is found that the client himself was not diligent, he cannot take advantage in the name of client- Advocate relationship. However, as in the present case, it has been established as a fact that the memo of appeal was ready on 31.08.2023 and the counsel got prepared the affidavit seeking condonation of delay with incorrect facts essentially to cover up the lapses on his part in not filing the appeal in time, it cannot be said that the appellant was in any manner negligent so as to disentitle her to seek condonation of delay." In view of the above, the matter requires consideration on merits. Therefore, the orders passed by the first appellate authority as well as the second appellate authority are hereby set aside. The revision succeeds and is allowed. The revisionist is directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 25,000/- before the Assessing Authority concerned within a period of two weeks from today. The matter is remanded before the first appellate authority for deciding the case on merit without taking any objection to the limitation, expeditiously, 4 STRE No. 18 of 2022 preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of receipt of deposit of cost by the revisionist, along with a certified copy of this order.. The question of law is answered in favour of the revisionist and against the Revenue. September 4, 2025 Amit Mishra (Piyush Agrawal,J.) AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned ACSC for the State. The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated

28.09.2021 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2008-09 under the UP VAT Act. The above-noted revision was admitted by this Court vide order dated

07.01.2022 on the following question of law:- "A. Whether the Tribunal and the appellate erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority, when the service of the assessment order was not valid in terms of Rule 72 of the U.P. VAT Rules, 2008 and at any rate, the reasons for delay were satisfactorily explained by the revisionist? B. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in deciding the appeal without examining the reasons for delay but by considering only the period of delay, when the delay was sufficiently explained by the revisionist and non-condonation of delay will lead to confirmation of demand of tax which otherwise is not legally payable? " Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the first appeal filed by the revisionist was beyond the period of limitation for which due explanation was furnished. He further submits that the revisionist was having its registration at Meerut as well as in Haryana, but due to unforeseen circumstances, business at Meerut was closed and all closing stocks were 2 STRE No. 18 of 2022 transferred to Haryana. He further submits that the earlier counsel, Shri Bharat Bhushan, Advocate, who received the order, had neither intimated the revisionist, nor taken appropriate action for filing the appeal, and therefore, first appeal could not be filed within limitation by the revisionist. Thereafter, the revisionist requested another counsel, Shri Manu Rishi, Advocate for taking back the order and all papers from Shri Bharat Bhushan, Advocate, but he refused to do so and therefore, further delay occurred in filing the first appeal. He further submits that the first appellate court, instead of condoning the delay in preferring the first appeal, has dismissed the appeal on the ground of laches, against which second appeal was preferred, which has also been dismissed without considering the material available on record. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist should not be suffered due to fault on the part of the counsel. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Rani Rewati Devi Ravi Pratap Nyas & Another Vs. Administrator General, UP & 22 Others [Special Appeal (Defective) No. 115/2024, decided on 03.07.2024]. He further submits that after closure of the business at Meerut, the left over stocks were transferred to Haryana, for which no form F could be submitted, but by other cogent material, the movement of goods, other than the sale outside the U.P., could be proved. Therefore, the matter requires consideration on merits. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the appeal was not decided on merit, but on a technical ground of lache. The delay has been explained showing inaction on the part of the earlier counsel of the revisionist. Laying down the settled principle, that the client cannot be punished for wrongdoing or inaction on the part of the counsel, the Division Bench of this Court in Rani Rewati Devi Ravi Pratap Nyas (supra) has held as under:- "17. From the above facts, it is more than apparent that insofar as the appellant is concerned, she has acted as a prudent person in approaching the counsel, getting the appeal prepared in time and in relying on the counsel that needful regarding the filing 3 STRE No. 18 of 2022 for which her presence is not necessary would be done by the counsel. As the counsel for whatever reason chose not to file the same and/or genuinely forgot to file the appeal, the litigant cannot be made to suffer on account of conduct/inaction of the counsel. The allegations made regarding filing of incorrect affidavit cannot be used against the appellant inasmuch as even in believing the version of the counsel for the delay in filing the appeal, the appellant had acted as a prudent person, however, once the inaction came to light, she has taken a stand, changed the counsel and has filed affidavit disclosing the facts as noticed herein before, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant has approached this Court with unclean hands.

18. In so far as the indication made in the affidavits/Aadhar Cards of two different addresses, one at Padrauna and the other is at Varanasi is concerned, the same by itself does not lead to anything. Though an explanation has been given that due to change in place of residence, a fresh Aadhar card has been got prepared indicating Varanasi as the place of residence.

19. So far as the judgements cited by the learned counsel for the parties are concerned, the principles laid down therein are well settled wherein while a client cannot be punished for the wrong doing/inaction of the counsel, in case it is found that the client himself was not diligent, he cannot take advantage in the name of client- Advocate relationship. However, as in the present case, it has been established as a fact that the memo of appeal was ready on 31.08.2023 and the counsel got prepared the affidavit seeking condonation of delay with incorrect facts essentially to cover up the lapses on his part in not filing the appeal in time, it cannot be said that the appellant was in any manner negligent so as to disentitle her to seek condonation of delay." In view of the above, the matter requires consideration on merits. Therefore, the orders passed by the first appellate authority as well as the second appellate authority are hereby set aside. The revision succeeds and is allowed. The revisionist is directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 25,000/- before the Assessing Authority concerned within a period of two weeks from today. The matter is remanded before the first appellate authority for deciding the case on merit without taking any objection to the limitation, expeditiously, 4 STRE No. 18 of 2022 preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of receipt of deposit of cost by the revisionist, along with a certified copy of this order.. The question of law is answered in favour of the revisionist and against the Revenue. September 4, 2025 Amit Mishra (Piyush Agrawal,J.) AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad