High Court · 2025

Heard Shri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned ACSC for the State – respondent.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, these revisions are decided by the common order at the admission stage itself.

3. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 84 of 2025 relates to the Assessment Year 2009-10 under section 9(4) of the U.P. Entry Tax Act, Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 86 of 2025 relates to the Assessment Year 2009-10 under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act and Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 87 of 2025 relates to the Assessment Year 2009-10 under section 28 UP VAT Act. 2 Since the issues involved in these revisions are similar and the same questions of law are framed, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 84 of 2025 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these revisions. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 84 of 2025

4. The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench I, Meerut in Second Appeal No. 25 of 2025 relating to the assessment year 2009-10 arising out of the proceedings under section 9(4) of the U.P. Entry Tax Act.

5. Following questions of law have been framed in the instant revision:- "(A) Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal as well as the authorities below were legally justified in rejecting the appeal of the applicant without there being any fault or mistake of the applicant? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal were legally justified in rejecting the appeal of the applicant when the delay was occurred due to the mistake of the Advocate of the applicant? (C) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the 1st appellate Authority in light of the judgement passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Ajanta Arts Vs. CST, reported in 1987 ATJ 112 and in the case of STRE No. 465 of 2017 (S/s Tulsyan Coal Company Vs. CCT) dated 20.11.2014?"

6. Learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist submits that the revisionist is a Proprietorship concern and registered under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act. The revisionist is engaged in the business of fabricator of steel structure and plastic, etc. He further submits that pursuant to the show cause notice, the Assessing Authority passed an ex parte order dated 01.03.2013 imposing tax on the revisionist. Thereafter, the revisionist filed a recall application on 16.07.2013 3 for recall of the ex parte order dated 01.03.2013, which has been rejected by the Assessing Authority vide order dated 03.04.2017. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2017, the revisionist preferred first appeal before the 1st appellate authority, which has been rejected vide order dated 13.05.2024 on the ground of delay. Still feeling aggrieved against the order dated 13.05.2024, the revisionist preferred a second appeal before the Commercial Court Tribunal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.01.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the delay in preferring the appeal before the 1st appellate authority was due to the mistake of the previous counsel, i.e. Shri Keshav Bandhu, to whom the revisionist has handed over all the papers and requisite fee for preferring the appeal. He further submits that the said counsel was in touch with the revisionist and informed that the appeal has been preferred, but the revisionist was surprised when the recovery proceedings were initiated against him. The revisionist approached the local counsel, Shri Keshav Bandhu, who informed that due to old age, on account of his mistake, the appeal could not be preferred. He submits that the appeal was filed along with delay condonation application supported by an affidavit, but still instead of considering the same on a sympathetic ground, the same was dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that due to the fault of the local counsel, the appellant should not be suffered. He further submits that in the affidavit filed by the revisionist before the 1st appellate authority, it has been stated that the fault if any has been done by the local Advocate of the revisionist, who failed to file the appeal within time, but the Tribunal without considering the same, dismissed the appeal of the revisionist. He further submits that the assessee should not be punished for the lapses on the part of the counsel. In support of his submissions, he 4 has placed reliance on the judgements of this Court in Ajanta Arts Vs. CST [1987 ATJ 112], S/s Tulsyan Coal Company Vs. CCT [STRE No. 465 of 2017 dated 20.11.2014] as well as the judgement of the Apex Court in Rafiq Vs. Munshilal [1981 (2) SCC 788].

9. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that the appeal has been filed without any proper explanation and therefore, the same has rightly been dismissed on the ground of laches. He further submits that the affidavit of the Advocate has been filed for the first time before this Court, which could not be accepted.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.

11. It is not in dispute that the first appeal has been filed with delay. The cause of delay has been shown to be due to the fault of the Advocate to whom the revisionist has handed over all papers and assurance was given by him that the appeal has been filed. Therefore, the revisionist was miscommunicated by the local lawyer, Shri Keshav Bandhu. Shri Keshav Bandhu, Advocate has filed his affidavit (Annexure No. 7, Page – 38) where he categorically admits his fault that the appeal could not be filed within time though the copy and due papers were handed over to him by the revisionist. Once an Advocate admits his fault, the assessee should not suffer in view of the judgement of this Court in Ajanta Arts (supra) as well as the judgement of the Apex Court in Rafiq (supra).

12. Once a local Advocate admits his fault of negligence, the assessee should not suffer due to the negligence of a counsel. Since the matter has not been decided on merits, it would be in the interest of justice that the same be decided on its own merit. 5

13. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court in the cases cited above, the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Authority as well as the impugned order passed by the Second Appellate Authority, i.e., the Commercial Tax Tribunal, in all the revisions cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby set aside.

14. Accordingly, all the revisions are allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- on each revision by the revisionist, which shall be deposited before the Assessing Authority concerned within a period of two weeks from today.

15. The First Appellate Authority is directed to decide the issue on its own merits.

16. The questions of law are answered accordingly. Order Date :-15/05/2025 Amit Mishra AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Shri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned ACSC for the State – respondent.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, these revisions are decided by the common order at the admission stage itself.

3. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 84 of 2025 relates to the Assessment Year 2009-10 under section 9(4) of the U.P. Entry Tax Act, Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 86 of 2025 relates to the Assessment Year 2009-10 under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act and Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 87 of 2025 relates to the Assessment Year 2009-10 under section 28 UP VAT Act. 2 Since the issues involved in these revisions are similar and the same questions of law are framed, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 84 of 2025 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these revisions. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 84 of 2025

4. The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench I, Meerut in Second Appeal No. 25 of 2025 relating to the assessment year 2009-10 arising out of the proceedings under section 9(4) of the U.P. Entry Tax Act.

5. Following questions of law have been framed in the instant revision:- "(A) Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal as well as the authorities below were legally justified in rejecting the appeal of the applicant without there being any fault or mistake of the applicant? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal were legally justified in rejecting the appeal of the applicant when the delay was occurred due to the mistake of the Advocate of the applicant? (C) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the 1st appellate Authority in light of the judgement passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Ajanta Arts Vs. CST, reported in 1987 ATJ 112 and in the case of STRE No. 465 of 2017 (S/s Tulsyan Coal Company Vs. CCT) dated 20.11.2014?"

6. Learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist submits that the revisionist is a Proprietorship concern and registered under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act. The revisionist is engaged in the business of fabricator of steel structure and plastic, etc. He further submits that pursuant to the show cause notice, the Assessing Authority passed an ex parte order dated 01.03.2013 imposing tax on the revisionist. Thereafter, the revisionist filed a recall application on 16.07.2013 3 for recall of the ex parte order dated 01.03.2013, which has been rejected by the Assessing Authority vide order dated 03.04.2017. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2017, the revisionist preferred first appeal before the 1st appellate authority, which has been rejected vide order dated 13.05.2024 on the ground of delay. Still feeling aggrieved against the order dated 13.05.2024, the revisionist preferred a second appeal before the Commercial Court Tribunal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.01.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the delay in preferring the appeal before the 1st appellate authority was due to the mistake of the previous counsel, i.e. Shri Keshav Bandhu, to whom the revisionist has handed over all the papers and requisite fee for preferring the appeal. He further submits that the said counsel was in touch with the revisionist and informed that the appeal has been preferred, but the revisionist was surprised when the recovery proceedings were initiated against him. The revisionist approached the local counsel, Shri Keshav Bandhu, who informed that due to old age, on account of his mistake, the appeal could not be preferred. He submits that the appeal was filed along with delay condonation application supported by an affidavit, but still instead of considering the same on a sympathetic ground, the same was dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that due to the fault of the local counsel, the appellant should not be suffered. He further submits that in the affidavit filed by the revisionist before the 1st appellate authority, it has been stated that the fault if any has been done by the local Advocate of the revisionist, who failed to file the appeal within time, but the Tribunal without considering the same, dismissed the appeal of the revisionist. He further submits that the assessee should not be punished for the lapses on the part of the counsel. In support of his submissions, he 4 has placed reliance on the judgements of this Court in Ajanta Arts Vs. CST [1987 ATJ 112], S/s Tulsyan Coal Company Vs. CCT [STRE No. 465 of 2017 dated 20.11.2014] as well as the judgement of the Apex Court in Rafiq Vs. Munshilal [1981 (2) SCC 788].

9. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that the appeal has been filed without any proper explanation and therefore, the same has rightly been dismissed on the ground of laches. He further submits that the affidavit of the Advocate has been filed for the first time before this Court, which could not be accepted.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.

11. It is not in dispute that the first appeal has been filed with delay. The cause of delay has been shown to be due to the fault of the Advocate to whom the revisionist has handed over all papers and assurance was given by him that the appeal has been filed. Therefore, the revisionist was miscommunicated by the local lawyer, Shri Keshav Bandhu. Shri Keshav Bandhu, Advocate has filed his affidavit (Annexure No. 7, Page – 38) where he categorically admits his fault that the appeal could not be filed within time though the copy and due papers were handed over to him by the revisionist. Once an Advocate admits his fault, the assessee should not suffer in view of the judgement of this Court in Ajanta Arts (supra) as well as the judgement of the Apex Court in Rafiq (supra).

12. Once a local Advocate admits his fault of negligence, the assessee should not suffer due to the negligence of a counsel. Since the matter has not been decided on merits, it would be in the interest of justice that the same be decided on its own merit. 5

13. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court in the cases cited above, the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Authority as well as the impugned order passed by the Second Appellate Authority, i.e., the Commercial Tax Tribunal, in all the revisions cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby set aside.

14. Accordingly, all the revisions are allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- on each revision by the revisionist, which shall be deposited before the Assessing Authority concerned within a period of two weeks from today.

15. The First Appellate Authority is directed to decide the issue on its own merits.

16. The questions of law are answered accordingly. Order Date :-15/05/2025 Amit Mishra AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad