1999 (7) TMI 638 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Tribunal to pass the impugned order based on time limitation.

Analysis:

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana pertained to a writ petition challenging an order under section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 issued by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab. The respondent, a registered dealer, had filed appeals and applications seeking rectification of mistakes in previous orders related to assessment. The Tribunal, in response to an application filed by the dealer, passed an order on May 10, 1995, rectifying its previous order from March 31, 1992, granting reliefs to the dealer.

The petitioners, represented by Shri M.C. Berry, raised objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to pass the impugned order, primarily arguing that the order was time-barred. The contention was based on the provision of subsection (1) of section 21-A of the Act, which allowed rectification of mistakes within two years from the date of the original order. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal exceeded its authority by rectifying an order dated March 31, 1992, in the order dated May 10, 1995.

On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Bindal, representing respondent No. 2, argued that the impugned order was not time-barred as it was a rectification of an earlier order dated December 27, 1993. However, the Court found this argument lacking merit upon a careful examination of the Tribunal's order, which clearly indicated the rectification of the March 31, 1992 order. Referring to the relevant provisions of section 21-A of the Act, the Court highlighted that the rectification could not extend beyond March 31, 1994, making the order dated May 10, 1995, invalid and void ab initio due to being beyond the statutory limitation period.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated May 10, 1995, based on the ground of limitation. As the order was invalidated on this basis, the Court did not delve into other objections raised during the proceedings. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order of the Tribunal was declared quashed, with no costs imposed on any party involved in the matter.