Shobha Saria Engineering College vs Commercial Taxes Officer

Alok Sharma, J.—The counsel for the petitioner-college submits that the Rajasthan Tax Board vide its order dated December 1, 2011, has mechanically dismissed the petitioner''s appeal under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter "the Act of 2003") without addressing the merits and submissions thereon of the petitioner-college. Counsel would submit that for a remedy of appeal to be a real remedy, it was incumbent upon the Rajasthan Tax Board to have addressed the case of the petitioner on the merits and passed a reasoned order. It has been submitted that the petitioner-college has a very substantial case inasmuch as it is claimed that under the Act of 2003, the petitioner-college did not fall within the definition of "dealer" u/s 2(11), nor could the petitioner-college be stated to be engaged in the "business" as defined u/s 2(6) of the Act of 2003. Counsel for the respondent would submit that a revision petition u/s 84 of the Act of 2003 is not maintainable against an interim order upheld in appeal. He submits that a revision petition before this court u/s 84 of the Act of 2003 is maintainable only where a question of law is involved and not otherwise. The submission is that the petitioner-college had approached the Rajasthan Tax Board on having partially failed on its interim application before the appellate authority. It is submitted that while the substantial issue is pending before the appellate authority, no question of law can be said to arise in the present revision petition.

Having heard the counsel for the parties and perused the revision petition, I am of the view that the appeals, to the Rajasthan Tax Board can only be filed u/s 83 of the Act of 2003 and are adjudicated u/s 83(10) which reads as under:

(10) The Tax Board shall, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as it thinks fit and send a copy thereof to the appellant, the assessing authority, the authority whose order was appealed against and the Commissioner.

In the instant case an appeal was filed u/s 83 of the Act of 2003 and has been dismissed--a revision is therefore maintainable u/s 84 of the Act of 2003. I thus find no merit in the objection to the maintainability of the revision.

The case of the petitioner-college is that from the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board dated December 1, 2011, the question of law which arises for the consideration by this court is as to whether the appeal before the Tax Board albeit against the interim order can be cursorily rejected without any reasoning and without reference to the judgments of the honourable Supreme Court as also this High Court.

In the facts of the case, I am of the view that the revision petition should succeed on this sole ground that the order dated December 1, 2011, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board is a non-speaking order which does not give out any reason for the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner-college.

On this ground alone, the revision petition ought to be allowed and the order dated December 1, 2011, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board deserves to be set aside. The matter is remanded back with the direction to the Tax Board to address the appeal of the petitioner-college with reference to all the questions of law and the facts agitated therein within a period of 15 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. The order of the Tax Board disposing of the appeal should be a reasoned order. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Stay application also stands disposed of.