2014 (1) TMI 1618 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the revisional power was properly conferred on the DETC or not - Held that - Under sub section (2) of Section 34, the State Government is empowered to delegate power of revisional jurisdiction on an authority below the Excise and Taxation Commissioner but the officer should not be below the rank of DETC. The appointed date under the Act is 1.4.2003 when it came into operation unless different date is declared by notification in the Official Gazette by the State Government. The question whether the notification issued prior thereto under the provisions of the Act could confer valid jurisdiction on an officer to exercise revisional power or was there any other notification, would require to be adjudicated by hearing the parties after perusing the relevant material. Though this issue was not agitated before the Tribunal, but in view of provisions of Sections 36 (6) and 36(9) of the Act, it can be agitated in this Court as it goes to the root of the case and particularly relating to assumption of jurisdiction by the revisional authority. - Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and refer the matter back to it to adjudicate the same after hearing counsel for the parties in respect of the issues raised in accordance with law - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Whether the Commissioner in revision enjoys supervisory jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the order passed by the Assessing Officer?
2. Whether the Commissioner can confirm, set aside, and pass an assessment order if the order by the Taxing Authority is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue?
3. Whether all orders by the Assessing Officer can be revised if they challenge propriety or legality?
4. Whether the provisions of section 34(1) of Haryana VAT Act are similar to section 263 of IT Act?
5. Whether the Tribunal was justified in its interpretation of the notification dated 31st March 2003?
6. Whether revision is permissible when there is consistency in assessment over the years?
7. Whether the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner has the power of revision for orders under HVAT Act 2003?
8. Whether the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, as the assessing authority, can pass orders under Section 34(1) of the Act?
9. Whether an officer with assessing and revisional authority can examine orders passed by the assessing authority?
10. Whether the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner was obligated to present new material when changing opinion?
11. Whether consistency in assessment should be maintained for different years of the same assessee based on the same facts and material?

Analysis:
1. The judgment involved VAT Appeal Nos.102 and 103 of 2013, focusing on the revisional jurisdiction under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The primary issue was whether the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (DETC) had the power of revision under Section 34(1) of the Act. The Tribunal had rejected the objection regarding jurisdiction raised by the assessee, leading to an appeal before the High Court.

2. The High Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act, highlighting that the State Government could delegate revisional jurisdiction to an officer not below the rank of DETC under Section 34(2). The appointed date for the Act was 1.4.2003, and the validity of a notification issued prior to this date conferring revisional powers needed adjudication. The Court emphasized that this issue, though not raised before the Tribunal, could be considered as it was crucial to the jurisdiction of the revisional authority.

3. After considering arguments from both sides, the High Court decided to set aside the Tribunal's order and refer the matter back for adjudication. The Court emphasized the importance of hearing parties and examining relevant material to determine the validity of the revisional powers conferred on the DETC. The judgment aimed to ensure a fair and thorough consideration of the issues raised by the parties regarding the revisional jurisdiction under the Haryana VAT Act, ultimately ordering a reevaluation by the Tribunal.

4. In conclusion, the High Court's detailed analysis of the issues surrounding revisional jurisdiction under the Haryana VAT Act underscored the significance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal provisions in tax assessments. By setting aside the Tribunal's order and directing a reevaluation, the Court sought to address the fundamental question of whether the DETC had the authority to exercise revisional powers, highlighting the importance of legal clarity and proper jurisdiction in tax matters.

← Previous Next →