2015 (6) TMI 118 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Invocation of extended period of limitation - Section 34 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Held that - Had the present case involved the sale of goods to the said Nigams, it may have been a different matter, altogether. It was necessary for the Tribunal, however, to first decide the issue as to whether this case is similar to the other case for it is only in the event of that finding being in the affirmative that the revisional jurisdiction could have been invoked under the second proviso to Section 34. This issue, admittedly, has not been raised much less dealt with in the impugned order. We would have considered deciding this issue ourselves but for the fact that it was suggested that there may be certain other aspects regarding the constitution of these bodies that may also require consideration. - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Haryana Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis:
The High Court considered the appeal challenging the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal filed against the revisional authority's decision. The main contention revolved around the invocation of revisional jurisdiction beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 34 of the Act. The Court observed that several questions of law were raised, but the Tribunal failed to address the primary issue. Consequently, the Court decided to remand the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, particularly focusing on the key issue at hand.

Section 34 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to call for records of cases to ensure the legality and propriety of proceedings or orders prejudicial to the State's interests. The second proviso under Section 34 restricts the revision of orders beyond three years from the date of order supply to the assessee, except in specific circumstances like retrospective legal changes or decisions by higher authorities. The revisional jurisdiction in this case was exercised based on a Tribunal decision regarding concessional rates for goods sold to specific entities.

The crux of the matter was whether the present case involving sales to different departments was akin to the case decided by the Tribunal earlier. The Court emphasized the need for the Tribunal to determine the similarity between the cases before invoking revisional jurisdiction under the second proviso of Section 34. As this crucial issue was not addressed in the impugned order, the Court directed the authorities under the Act to decide on this matter, leaving room for further examination of other relevant aspects concerning the entities involved.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, specifically instructing the Tribunal to address the key issue of similarity between the cases. The Tribunal was granted the discretion to decide on this issue or further refer the matter to the revisional authority for appropriate action.