9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 760 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an Appellate Authority could grant benefit to the State without filing an appeal or cross-objections in the appeal preferred by the dealer or vice versa? Summary: Issue 1: Appellate Authority's Power to Grant Benefit Without Appeal or Cross-Objections The appeals under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (the Act) arise from the order dated 14.07.2011 by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, dismissing the appellant's appeal. The appellant, a private limited company in the cosmetics and perfumery business, filed quarterly returns and deposited the due tax for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06. The assessment for 2004-05 was completed on 31.03.2008, finding an excess deposit of Rs. 11,65,876/- to be adjusted towards the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the CST Act). Subsequent rectification applications led to adjustments and carry-forwards of excess amounts. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal against the second rectification order dated 10.09.2009 and raised a demand based on unverified input tax claims from 2003-04. The appellant argued that the Joint Excise & Taxation Commissioner could not pass an order in favor of the Revenue without an appeal or cross-objections by the Revenue, citing Rule 65 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules and the precedent set in Fixwell Pushin Cords Pvt. Ltd vs. Presiding Officer Sales Tax Tribunal. The Revenue contended that Rule 65 allowed the Joint Excise & Taxation Commissioner to pass such an order. The court examined Section 33 of the Act and Rule 65, noting that the Tribunal cannot enhance the tax liability in an appeal filed by the dealer, as established in State of Kerala v. Vijaya Stores. The court held that without an appeal or cross-objections, the Tribunal or Appellate Authorities could not enhance the tax liability. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the orders by the Tribunal and the first Appellate Authority were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner for fresh orders, with the caveat that the Revenue could initiate other permissible proceedings against the dealer in accordance with the law.
|
