2011 (10) TMI 551 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner exercising the powers of appeal under section 20(1)(a) is an authority subordinate to Commissioner for the purposes of section 21(1) of the Act - Held that - Present references are academic in nature as admittedly the State is in appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner on August 25, 2003. Since the appeal is pending at the instance of the State, the question whether the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner could exercise suo motu revisional power under section 21 of the Act to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner is academic in nature as all question at the instance of the State can be decided on the merits by the Tribunal. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction need not be gone into the present set of cases when the order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner has been challenged in appeal as well. Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner under section 20(1)(a) in relation to Commissioner under section 21(1) of the Act.
2. Commissioner's authority to revise orders passed by Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner acting as an appellate authority.

Analysis:
The judgment of the court addressed the questions of law referred by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, regarding the jurisdiction of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the Commissioner under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The case stemmed from the interception of a car carrying taxable goods, specifically diamonds, resulting in a penalty imposed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The dealers challenged this penalty, leading to appeals and subsequent orders by various authorities.

The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Joint Director (Enforcement) allowed the appeals of the dealers and quashed the penalty initially imposed. However, the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 21 of the Act, set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and reinstated the penalty. This decision was challenged by the dealers through revision petitions before the Sales Tax Tribunal.

The Sales Tax Tribunal found the revisional authority's action to be beyond jurisdiction and set aside the revision order. Subsequently, the questions of law were referred to the High Court for consideration. During the proceedings, it was highlighted that the State had filed appeals against the Deputy Commissioner's order, which were pending before the Punjab VAT Tribunal. This led the High Court to deem the references as academic, as the State's appeals could address the issues raised.

Consequently, the High Court returned the references unanswered, directing the Punjab VAT Tribunal to decide the appeals on their merits without considering the previous decision regarding the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner's jurisdiction. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal should adjudicate the appeals in accordance with the law, given the pending appeals challenging the Deputy Commissioner's order.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the academic nature of the references due to the pending appeals and directed the Punjab VAT Tribunal to decide the appeals on their merits without delving into the revisional jurisdiction issue, as the State's appeals could address the matters raised effectively.