2023 (7) TMI 879 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Invocation of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 48(1) of the VAT Act, 2005 - mistake or error apparent in the order sought to be rectified or not - rate of tax on charger - HELD THAT - The clear mandate of law, thus, 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 19.06.2017, passed by the Tax Tribunal being clearly beyond the period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 48 of the Act. The order passed by the learned Tribunal on 19.6.2017 is neither erroneous nor does it amount to non decision of question of law. Since, no question of law has arisen for consideration before this Court, the petition fails and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves condonation of delay in filing an appeal, challenge to orders passed by the Tax Tribunal under the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain revision petitions.

Condonation of Delay:
The applicants sought condonation of a 28 days' delay in filing the appeal, which was not objected to by the respondent's counsel. The delay was condoned, and the application was disposed of.

Challenge to Tribunal Orders:
The petitioners challenged orders passed by the Himachal Pradesh Tax Tribunal related to VAT liability on the sale of cell phone chargers. The Tribunal had initially directed the respondent to pay a differential amount of tax on chargers sold separately. The Tribunal's order was based on the judgment that chargers are accessories to cell phones and not part of them, thus attracting a higher VAT rate. The respondent appealed the order, and the Tribunal subsequently allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous orders.

Jurisdiction of High Court:
The petitioners invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 48(1) of the VAT Act, 2005, challenging the Tribunal's orders. However, the Court clarified that revisional jurisdiction can only be exercised against orders passed by the Tax Tribunal under specific sections of the Act. The Court noted that the petitioners were beyond the prescribed period for challenging the Tribunal's order and that no question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.