2015 (10) TMI 775 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Exemption under section 6(2) of the CST Act - Whether the notification issued prior to the introduction of the Haryana VAT Act could confer the valid jurisdiction on an officer to exercise the revisional power - whether the revisional power was properly conferred on the JETC or not - Held that - Court while delving into identical issue in (H. M. Mehra & Co. v. State of Haryana 2014 (1) TMI 1618 - Punjab and Haryana High Court after discussing certain provisions of the Act set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and referred 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. - order dated June 14, 2012, annexure A-4 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal
2. Validity of revisional power conferred on the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (JETC)

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing the appeal:
The judgment begins by condoning the delay in filing the appeal and disposing of the relevant application. It then proceeds to address VAT Appeal No. 15 of 2013, which was filed by the assessee under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 against an order passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal. The amended substantial questions of law proposed to be raised relate to the validity of jurisdiction conferred on an officer for revisional power and the supervisory jurisdiction of the Commissioner in revision. The court allows the amended substantial questions of law and takes them on record.

2. Validity of revisional power conferred on the JETC:
The judgment delves into the facts of the case, where the assessee, a Government of India undertaking, was involved in the business of power house erection in Haryana during the assessment year 2003-04. The assessing authority calculated excess tax to be refunded to the appellant-company. However, the revisional authority reversed the exemption allowed under the CST Act by the Assessing Authority without providing a reason for restricting the expenses of labour and services to 25% of the total turnover. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal, which remanded the matter back to the revisional authority due to procedural lapses. The primary issue before the court was whether the revisional power was properly conferred on the JETC. The judgment refers to a previous case with a similar issue and sets aside the Tribunal's order, remanding the matter back for adjudication in accordance with the law after hearing both parties.

In conclusion, the judgment sets aside the Tribunal's order and remands the matter back for further adjudication in light of the legal provisions and after hearing both parties. All three appeals are disposed of accordingly.