9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of tax paid by the appellant as determined by the Assessing Authority has been upheld. Appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Name of the company was changed from M/s DLF Universal Ltd. to DLF Ltd. w.e.f. 27.05.2006. Appellant-company was a subsidiary of DLF Universal Ltd. and was engaged in the activity of construction of buildings. Such construction activity was closed down by DLF Industries Ltd. in the year 1996 and thereafter machinery and equipments etc. were rented out to M/s DLF Universal Ltd. on the strength of an agreement executed at New Delhi. During the period in question i.e. 1998-1999 the appellant-company was duly registered for sales tax under the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsal Ltd. was outside the jurisdiction of the Haryana State because the agreement between the two parties was executed outside the State of Haryana. Therefore, the rental income from M/s DLF Universal Ltd. can not form part of the turnover of the assessee in Haryana. Another aspect i.e. claim of refund also arises in this case and the claim of refund has been examined in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. The Union of India (STC-SC page-467). Shri Vipin Jindal, GM Finance of the company as well as power of Attorney holder for both the companies has pointed out that DLF Industries Ltd. was merged into DLF Universal Ltd. vide order dated 28th July 2000 of Pb. And ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Assessing Authority. As per provisions of the Rule 36 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules read with Section 43 of the Act, a refund exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs has to be sanctioned by the Commissioner and accordingly the refund calculated by the Assessing Authority was referred to the Commissioner for necessary approval. The Commissioner vide order dated 12.08.2003 (Annexure A-2) declined to approve the refund. Appellant-company preferred an appeal before the Haryana Tax Tribunal and vide order dated 02.09.2004 the mater was remanded to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana for fresh decision in accordance with law and after hearing the parties. The Commissioner, however, vide order dated 19.01.2005 (Annexure A-5) reiterated it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the Assessing Authority and in proceedings for determining refund, only question was of quantification of refund. The relevant observations of the Division Bench were in the following terms:- "Therefore, we are of the view that on principle as well as on precedent, it stands established that an officer exercising the power of determining the amount of refund cannot exercise the power of review or appeal or revision. Such an officer has to respect the order of assessment and then is required to proceed to determine the amount of refund. The provisions of Section 43 read with Rule 36 postulate the limits of their power as already noticed and, therefore, the orders passed by the DETC are liable to be set aside." It has gone uncontr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
