Judgment:
Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor on behalf of the revisionist, Learned Standing counsel on behalf of the respondent.
2. Mahajan Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. Khurja Road, Sikandrabad, District Bulandsahar has filed this revision under Section 11(7) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act against the order passed by the U.P. trade Tax Tribunal dated 3.12.204, whereby the application filed by the revisionist under Section 22 of the Act has been rejected.
3. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that second appeal No. 1143 of 2001 (Assessment Year 1996-97) preferred by the Assessee, was partly allowed vide order dated 16th October, 2004 and the tax liabilities of the Assessee was reduced by Rs. 47,639.25. The remaining amount as assessed under the order of the Assessing Authority as confirmed by the First Appellate Authority was directed to be recovered.
4. On behalf of the Assessee an application under Section 22 of the Trade Tax Act was filed on the Ground that the hearing of the appeal was concluded by the Tribunal on 23.9.2004, however, the judgment was delivered by the Tribunal only on 16th October , 2004. The judgment so delivered is beyond the period the period prescribed under the circular dated 30th April, 1988, which was binding upon the Tribunal. Therefore, in view of the circular issued by the President, Trade Tax tribunal dated 30th April, 1988, specifically paragraph 11 which was mandatory, the Division Bench of the Tribunal, which had heard the appeal, should have obtained the permission from the President of the Trade Tax Tribunal for extension of time for delivery of the judgment, once the prescribed period of 20 days from the date of hearing had expired.
5. The application so filed by the Assessee has been rejected by the Tribunal by means of the order dated 3.12.2004, which is under challenge in the present revision.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present revision.
7. Counsel for the Revisionist submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Sales Tax, A.P. v. Indra Industries(2000 U.P.T.C. page 472) the circular issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax are Binding upon the Tax Authority. Therefore, under the Clause 11 of the circular the judgment could have been delivered by the Division Bench only after obtaining prior permission from the President, once the prescribed period of 20 days from the date of hearing had expired. It is further submitted that in view of the judgment in the case of Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1994 U.P.T.C. page 1036, if the procedure prescribed has not been followed by the Appellate Authority, the Same can be rectified in exercise of powers under Section 22 of the Act.
8. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the order passed by the tribunal.
9. From the facts which is noticed hereinabove, it is apparently clear that the only grievance raised by the revisionist is in respect of non-compliance of para-11 of the circular issued by the President of Trade Tax Tribunal dated 30th April, 1988. For Appreciating the controversy raise in the present revision, it would be relevant to reproduce para-11 of the said circular :
^^izR;sd lnL; dks ihB dj fu.kZ; fy[kus ds fy,lkekU;r;k vf/kdre ln fnu dh vof/k gksxhA [k.MihB dk fu.kZ; fy[kus ds fy, vf/kdRevof/k 20 fnu dh gksxh rkfd izR;sd lnL; dks bl fnu dk le; fey ldsA blh izdkj o`grihB dk fu.kZ; fy[kkus dh vf/kdre vof/k 30 fnu gksxhA rkfd izR;sd lnL; dks bl fnufey ldsA ;fn fdUgha fo'ks'k vifjgk;Z ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fu.kZ; fu/kkZfjr le;esa ?kksf'kr u fd;s tkus dh lEHkkouk gks rks lEcfU/kr lnL; dks v/;{k dhvuqefr izkIr djuh gksxhA
10. A bare reading of the said Clause of the circular would establish that the said circular, in so far it prescribes the time limit for delivery of the judgment, is not mandatory not violation of the said time limit would render the judgment delivered by the Bench of the Tribunal, which had heard the appeal, illegal in any manner.
11. In the opinion of the Court Clause 11 of the said circular is only directory in nature, specifically having regard to the word 'samanyatah' as well as in view of the fact that no consequence have been provided for in case the judgment is not delivered by the Division Bench within the prescribed period as mentioned in the said Clause. Mere use of the word ^^vf/kdre vof/k** in the circular cannot be read as a statutory restriction on the powers if the Division Bench of the Tribunal to deliver the judgment within 20 days. The said words alone cannot be interfered in a manner to suggest that the time limit fixed is mandatory in nature.
12. Since this Court is of the opinion that Clause 11 of the said circular is not mandatory in nature, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the issue as to whether the said circular, which only lays down the general direction to be followed by the various Benches of the Tribunal while hearing the appeals has a binding upon the Bench or is merely a guideline to be normally followed. Therefore, it is not necessary to adjudicate upon the contention of the revisionist that the circular in question is binding in nature as there is a dispute as to whether the circular dated 30th April, 1988 can be equated at par with the circular issued by the Commissioner, Sales Tax under Section 42(2), A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, which was subject matter of consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, A.P. v. Indra Industries (Supra).
13. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.