2018 (3) TMI 236 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Amnesty Scheme - proceedings u/s 29 of The HVAT Act, 2003 - Held that - As per clause-8 on acceptance of the application for Amnesty, the dealer was required to withdraw all appeals within 15 days of acceptance order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that appeal cannot be filed against the impugned order because of clause-8 of the Amnesty Scheme. The dispute survives only with regard to liability created on the petitioner for work contract. In the impugned order, the petitioner has been held liable as a developer to a liability of ₹ 53,96,78,860/- for which the petitioner has discharged his liability by paying a lump-sum under the Amnesty scheme. The petitioner would be required to comply with the provisions of Section 33(5) of the Act only with regard to the balance payment i.e. ₹ 27,66,08,864/-. Petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Quashing of order under Section 29 of The Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
2. Interpretation of the Amnesty Scheme introduced by the State of Haryana under Section 59A of the Act.
3. Application of the Amnesty Scheme by a petitioner engaged in the business of developing residential and commercial projects.
4. Liability of the petitioner under the Amnesty Scheme as a builder/developer and as a contractor.
5. Compliance with the conditions of the Amnesty Scheme by the petitioner.
6. Appealability of the order passed under the Amnesty Scheme.
7. Requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee or surety for entertainment of appeal under Section 33(5) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition sought the quashing of an order dated 28.02.2017 passed under Section 29 of The Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner, engaged in developing projects, was inspected, and proceedings were initiated based on impounded material. The State of Haryana introduced an Amnesty Scheme for dealers in construction businesses. The petitioner opted for amnesty for certain assessment years, complying with the scheme's terms by depositing a portion of the amount due. The order dated 28.02.2017 created a substantial liability on the petitioner, leading to the challenge.

2. The interpretation of the Amnesty Scheme introduced under Section 59A of the Act was crucial. The Scheme required withdrawal of pending petitions and keeping proceedings in abeyance upon acceptance of the application. The order under challenge was conditional, absolving the petitioner only for liability as a builder/developer, not as a contractor. The cumulative effect of the proceeding determined tax payable under both capacities, leading to the demand raised in the impugned order.

3. The petitioner's application under the Amnesty Scheme was accepted, but the liability as a contractor was not absolved. The contention that liability as a contractor is related to the turnover considered for liability as a builder/developer was raised. The court held that both liabilities were interconnected, and striking down the order partially was not appropriate at that stage.

4. The petitioner's compliance with the conditions of the Amnesty Scheme, including withdrawing appeals within a specified period, was discussed. The court clarified that filing an appeal against the order would not violate the Scheme as the dispute pertained to the liability created as a contractor, not covered by the Amnesty order.

5. Regarding appealability, the order passed was deemed appealable under Section 33 of the Act. The petitioner was required to furnish a bank guarantee or surety for the appeal to be entertained, specifically for the balance payment liability as a contractor.

6. The judgment disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order, focusing on the liability remaining unpaid as a contractor under the Amnesty Scheme.

← Previous Next →