1993 (11) TMI 207 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order passed by Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana; Imposition of penalty under section 48 of the Act; Validity of returns filed by the petitioner; Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 39 of the Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company registered under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, challenged the penalty imposed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The petitioner's factory building was under construction until January 1986, when production began. Initially, returns showing "nil" turnover were filed, but later revised returns were submitted with taxes paid. The Assessing Authority imposed penalties, which were partly set aside by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The Tribunal upheld the penalties, leading to the petitioner's appeal to the High Court through writ petitions. The petitioner argued that the penalties were unjustified and that the lawyer who filed the returns was not authorized. The respondents contended that the penalties were justified. The Court focused on the Tribunal's order and the jurisdiction under section 39 of the Act.

The Court noted that the Tribunal's authority was limited to the points raised in the appeal before it. As the Assessing Authority did not challenge the appellate decision, the Tribunal could not consider unchallenged facts. The respondents argued that the Tribunal had the power to pass a just and proper order under section 39(6) of the Act. However, the Court clarified that this power was confined to the claims made in the appeal and did not extend to suo motu actions. As the Tribunal failed to decide based on the appeal's content, its order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision after hearing both parties.

Regarding another writ petition, the Court decided to remand the case to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits to avoid contradictory findings. Both writ petitions were allowed, and the cases were remanded to the Tribunal. The parties agreed that the sales tax cases had become infructuous, leading to the dismissal of the cases without costs. The writ petitions were allowed, and the sales tax cases were dismissed as infructuous due to the remand for fresh decisions.