2023 (8) TMI 532 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Invocation of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 48(1) of the VAT Act, 2005 - rectification of mistake or error apparent in the order - rate of tax on mobile/cell Phones, electronic and electrical goods - HELD THAT - The clear mandate of law is that this Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act only against the orders passed by Tax Tribunal either under Section 45(2) or Section 46(3) of the VAT Act. Such jurisdiction can be exercised if the person aggrieved applies to this Court within 90 days of the communication of the order and also if the involvement of any question of law arising out of erroneous decision of law or failure to decide a question of law is found to exist. The impugned order passed by the Tax Tribunal in Rectification Application filed by the petitioners under Section 47 of the VAT Act is not open to challenge by the petitioners before this Court under Section 48 of the VAT Act. Petitioners can also not be allowed to assail the order dated 14.06.2017, passed by the Tax Tribunal being clearly beyond the period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 48 of the Act. Revision petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to the order passed by the Tax Tribunal in Rectification Application and the invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 48(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Challenge to Tribunal's Order in Rectification Application:
The petitioners sought to assail the order passed by the Himachal Pradesh Tax Tribunal in Appeal No. 10 of 2016 and Rectification Application No. 3/2018. The respondent, a dealer engaged in the sale of mobile/cell phones, challenged the imposition of VAT at 13.75% on chargers sold separately, contending that chargers were part of the mobile phone and should be charged at the same rate of 5% applicable to mobile phones. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Assessing Authority and the first Appellate Authority.

Invocation of Revisional Jurisdiction:
The petitioners invoked revisional jurisdiction under Section 48(1) of the VAT Act, challenging the Tribunal's order in the Rectification Application and the principal order passed by the Tribunal. The Court clarified that revisional jurisdiction can only be exercised against orders passed by the Tax Tribunal under specific sections of the VAT Act, within 90 days of communication of the order, and if there is a question of law arising from an erroneous decision or failure to decide a question of law.

Court's Decision:
The Court held that the order passed by the Tribunal in the Rectification Application was not open to challenge under Section 48 of the VAT Act. The petitioners were deemed to be beyond the period of limitation to challenge the order dated 14.06.2017. Since no question of law arose for consideration, the revision petition was dismissed. The Court found that the Tribunal's order was not erroneous and did not amount to a non-decision of a question of law, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the revision petition as the order passed by the Tribunal was found to be neither erroneous nor a failure to decide a question of law. The petitioners were deemed to be outside the period of limitation for challenging the order, resulting in the dismissal of the revision petition.