9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AP No. 183 of 2014. 3. VATAP No. 183 of 2014 has been filed by the assessee under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 15.1.2013 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Haryana, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in STA No. 869 of 2012-2013 claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the declaration forms in the possession of the appellant dealer should be permitted to be taken on record and consequential benefit be granted? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the declaration forms can be produced at the appellate stage and even at the High Court stage? (iii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 15.1.2013 (Annexure A-3) partly allowed the appeal by accepting the pro-rata calculation of tax made by the assessing authority. The Tribunal, however, upheld the disallowance of purchase tax being adjusted against the notional tax liability. Hence, the present appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The issues that arise for adjudication in these appeals are:- (i) Whether the appellant is entitled to produce the STDIV declaration and ST-14B Forms, even before the appellate authority? (ii) Whether the amount of purchase tax can be demanded from the appellant under Rule 28B(3)(j) of the Rules especially when it had been granted exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the sale of goods manufactured by it and any purchase tax leviable was recoverable from the said unit. Thus, the Tribunal was right in holding that the notional tax liability calculated for the purposes of setting off against the tax exemption limit shall be the amount of tax payable on the sale of furnished products under the Local Sales Tax Law and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 which does not include purchase tax and, therefore, the amount of purchase tax levied was recoverable from the appellant. The findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- "3. The second issue raised by Mr. K.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the amount of purchase tax assessed cannot be demanded from the appellant-company because it had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B was entitled to exemption from payment of tax only on the sale of goods manufactured by it, so any purchase tax leviable was recoverable from the unit. Further, the definition of notional sales tax liability (NSTL), calculated for the purpose of setting off against the tax exemption limit, states, vide clause (m) of sub-rule (3) of rule 28B, that it means the amount of tax payable on the sale of finished products under the local sales tax law (HGST Act) and the CST Act; and in clause (b) of sub rule (8) of rule 28B, it is stated, "...The (exemption/entitlement) certificate issued shall be valid unless cancelled or withdrawn from the date of commercial production to the 30th June next or when notional sales tax liability first exceeds the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
