2023 (10) TMI 670 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of assessment order - Time Limitation - demand raised on the ground that the appellant is a lumpsum contractor and validity of Section 9 read with Rule 49 of HVAT Act/Rules - assessee was liable to lumpsum payment of tax? - HELD THAT - The delay of less than three months in passing of the revisional order has been explained satisfactorily. In this backdrop, the Tribunal has rightly held that the case fell in the exceptions of extending the period of limitation by invoking the provision of Section 34 of the HVAT Act. Hence, finding with regard to the extension of limitation has been rightly given by the Tribunal keeping in view that the assessee had sought a number of adjournments before the Revisional Authority. The second ground for challenge to the order passed by the Tribunal is that the assessee was not liable to lumpsum payment of tax. Even this argument is liable to be rejected as Section 9 read with Rule 49 of the HVAT Act already had a provision for payment option by a contractor/developer to pay lumpsum tax - Hence, the appellant was liable to pay lump sum tax upto 16.05.2010. Thus, no ground is made out to interfere in the findings recorded by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. No substantial question of law arises for consideration - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal under Section 36 of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003 against the order passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, dismissal of appeal, assessment for the year 2008-2009, revisional proceedings, validity of Section 9 read with Rule 49 of HVAT Act/Rules, extension of limitation, liability of lumpsum payment of tax.

Assessment for the year 2008-2009:
The appellant, a builder, filed returns in compliance with the Haryana VAT Act for the assessment year 2008-2009. The appellant opted for a lumpsum contract under Section 9 of the Act. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner initiated revisional proceedings, which were challenged in court. Various notices for revision were received, leading to a demand raised by the Revisional Authority. The appellant appealed to the Haryana Tax Tribunal, which later dismissed the appeal based on the appellant's liability to pay tax before a specified date.

Extension of Limitation:
The appellant argued that the revisional order was beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal, however, noted that the revisional proceedings were adjourned multiple times at the appellant's request. The Tribunal found the delay in passing the order justified due to the circumstances and adjournments requested by the appellant, thus extending the limitation period.

Liability of Lumpsum Payment of Tax:
The appellant contended that they were not liable to pay lumpsum tax prior to a certain date. The Tribunal rejected this argument, citing provisions in Section 9 and Rule 49 of the HVAT Act, which allowed for lumpsum tax payment by contractors. The appellant was found liable to pay lump sum tax up to a specified date.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's findings were upheld, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit based on the Tribunal's decision.