2016 (9) TMI 823 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of refund claim - Rule 4(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax (Deferment and Exemption) Rules, 1991 - benefit of exemption/deferment for payment of tax available from the date of issuance of exemption/entitlement certificate - Rule 3(2) of the Rules - special and alloys steels - eligibility certificate - delay in issuance of eligibility certificate - extension of eligibility period - alternative remedy of appeal - Held that - the orders are passed under the Act and the Rules, which is a complete code in itself. There is no question of representation being entertained when the orders are being passed by quasi-judicial authorities against which statutory remedies are available. The petitioner having failed to avail of the same at the appropriate time cannot be permitted to get the issue re-opened merely by filing a representation. There was statutory remedy available to the petitioner against the order passed by the Excise & Taxation Commissioner on 13.10.2003, any subsequent representation made by the petitioner, that too more than three years thereafter raising any plea was not maintainable and as a consequence all subsequent orders passed thereon have no value at all. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner ever raised any issue regarding the period of its entitlement of exemption from payment of tax immediately after the eligibility and exemption certificates were issued to it. The issue initially was also sought to be raised nearly two years after the expiry thereof. There is no provision in the Rules providing for extension of period of eligibility or changing the dates thereof. It is too late to consider the prayer of the petitioner regarding validity of the provisions of the Rules with reference to the period of entitlement of exemption from payment of tax once the issue had attained finality way back in the year 2003. The plea of discrimination sought to be raised is also to be noticed and rejected for the reason that firstly M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. was granted deferment from payment of tax and not exemption and further there was an amendment made in the Rules to that effect. The vires of that Rule has not been challenged. Petition dismissed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the orders passed by Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Excise and Taxation Commissioner, and Value Added Tax Tribunal.
2. Challenge to the vires of the note appended to Rule 4(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax (Deferment and Exemption) Rules, 1991.
3. Alternative prayer to read down the provisions of Rule 3(2) of the Rules.
4. Allegation of discrimination in comparison to M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.
5. Timeliness and maintainability of the petitioner's claims and representations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Orders:
The petitioner challenged the orders dated 31.10.2006, 22.5.2008, and 2.9.2013, issued by various tax authorities. The petitioner argued that the eligibility certificate was issued after a delay of 6-1/2 years from the date of production, and the exemption certificate was valid only for five months. The petitioner sought a reading of Rule 3(2) that would allow the benefit from the date of issuance of the exemption certificate rather than the date of production. The court found no reason to interfere with the orders, noting that the petitioner enjoyed the benefit for the period it was entitled to, and the orders had attained finality.

2. Challenge to the Vires of Rule 4(1):
The petitioner challenged the note appended to Rule 4(1) of the Rules, arguing that it created a discrepancy as the eligibility certificate could not be granted on the date of production. The court did not entertain this challenge, emphasizing that the petitioner did not raise this issue at the appropriate time and had availed the benefits initially without objection.

3. Alternative Prayer Regarding Rule 3(2):
The petitioner sought to read down Rule 3(2) to mean that the benefit of exemption/deferment should be available from the date of issuance of the exemption certificate. The court rejected this interpretation, stating that the Rules did not provide for such an extension or alteration of the benefit period.

4. Allegation of Discrimination:
The petitioner claimed discrimination by comparing its case to M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., which received an extension for the period spent in issuing the eligibility certificate. The court noted that the facts of the two cases were different, as M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. was granted deferment, not exemption, and an amendment in the Rules facilitated their case. The court found no merit in the discrimination claim.

5. Timeliness and Maintainability:
The court highlighted the petitioner's delay in challenging the orders and the maintainability of subsequent representations. The petitioner did not appeal the order dated 13.10.2003, which had attained finality. The court emphasized that statutory remedies were available, and the petitioner’s failure to avail them in a timely manner precluded reopening the issue through representations. The court dismissed the petition as highly belated and lacking merit.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the orders and the provisions of the Rules. The petitioner's claims were found to be untimely and unsubstantiated, and the allegation of discrimination was rejected due to differing circumstances and lack of relevant amendments in the petitioner’s case.