9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 419 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of Revision petition - creation of additional demand - sale or works contract - Section 46(3) before the H.P. VAT Appellate Tribunal - HELD THAT - The Tribunal that by filing the appeal, the petitioner was actually seeking reconsideration of the order dt. 29.08.2013, is patently erroneous in law. The view of the Tribunal that the petitioner is trying to reagitate the same issues which stood decided by the Tribunal in its order dt. 29.08.2013, cannot be agreed and, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable and cannot be entertained. The order dt. 29.08.2013 passed by the Tribunal, decided only certain broad principles and did not give any findings on the actual facts and had remitted the matter back to the 2nd respondent by directing a Committee of two or three Members of TRU and Assessing Authority to be constituted to examine the case. There is no question of the appellant seeking review and reconsideration of the order dt. 29.08.2013 by filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the order dt. 26.10.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent, as has been wrongly held by the Tribunal - the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of whether the Ld. H.P. Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order passed by Respondent No. 2 is not maintainable due to the order passed by the Tribunal in 2013. Details of the Judgment: The petitioner, registered under the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was assessed by the Assistant Commissioner for multiple years, resulting in an additional demand. The petitioner appealed this assessment, leading to a remand by the Appellate Authority for re-examination. Subsequent orders and revisions were made, with the Revisional Authority disallowing certain deductions. The Tribunal, in 2013, set aside previous orders and remanded the matter for further examination, emphasizing the distinction between works contract and sale. A committee was formed to review the case, and its report was submitted in 2015. However, the Revisional Authority's decision in 2020 led to a revision application before the H.P. Tax Tribunal. In its order dated 02.07.2021, the Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the petitioner was seeking reconsideration of the 2013 order, which was not permissible. The High Court disagreed, noting that the 2013 order laid down principles without specific findings on facts, which were later examined by the Revisional Authority. As the petitioner was not granted expected relief, the Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration within four months. This judgment clarifies the distinction between seeking reconsideration of an order and challenging subsequent decisions based on factual findings. It ensures parties have the right to appeal on factual matters and cannot be left without recourse when specific findings were not rendered previously.
|
