Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 222 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDenial of exemption claim - Recalculation of notional tax liability - Held that - Tribunal on appreciation of evidence had come to the conclusion that the plea of the assessee for recalculation of notional tax liability for the years 1997-98 and 1999-2000 could not be accepted as the same were not the subject matter of the present appeal. - findings recorded by the Tribunal which were not shown to be perverse or erroneous in any manner, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration. The judgment in M/s Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala s case (1982 (1) TMI 167 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant was relating to various issues arising in the same assessment year and, thus, being on different fact situation is of no help to the assessee. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Refusal to give effect to the decision of the High Court 2. Justification of partial effect to the decision of the High Court 3. Permissibility of revision for A.Y. 2001-02 4. Request for recalculation of tax liability for year 1996-97 to 2001-02 Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act against the order of the Haryana Tax Tribunal, questioning the refusal to give effect to the High Court's decision. The Tribunal concluded that the plea for recalculation of notional tax liability for earlier years could not be accepted as it was not the subject matter of the present appeal. The Tribunal found that the appellant had accepted the tax rate on plastic granules for the relevant period before the Revisional Authority, and since the assessment orders for earlier years had attained finality, the plea for recalculation could not be entertained. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in this appeal. 2. Regarding the partial effect of the High Court's decision, the Tribunal held that the appellant had not disputed the applicability of the tax rate on plastic granules for the relevant period before the Revisional Authority. The Tribunal emphasized that the judgment in Excise & Taxation Commissioner Vs. S.K. & Company could not be applied to transactions/assessments from much earlier periods not subject to the present appeal. Therefore, the plea for recalculation of notional tax liability for earlier years was dismissed, and the appeal was rejected. 3. The issue of the permissibility of revision for the assessment year 2001-02 arose in the context of the goods manufactured by the assessee being treated as general goods in earlier years. The Revisional Authority revised the order for the assessment year 2001-02 by applying a tax rate of 12% on plastic goods. However, the Revisional Authority refused to revise the orders of the earlier assessment years. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the appellant had not raised the issue earlier, and the assessment orders for earlier years had become final, precluding the revision of tax liability for those years. 4. The appellant requested the recalculation of tax liability for the years 1996-97 to 2001-02, arguing that HDPE and LDPE granules should be taxed at 4% as plastic goods. However, the Tribunal found that the plea for recalculation of tax liability for earlier years was not within the scope of the present appeal, as the assessment year in question was 2001-02. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant had accepted the tax rate for the relevant period before the Revisional Authority, and the plea for recalculation could not be entertained based on finality of earlier assessment orders.
|