9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al filed by the State against the order of Tribunal dated 03.10.2012 (Annexure P-4) had been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of vegetable ghee. For the purpose of sales tax, the petitioner was registered under the Haryana VAT Act having TIN 06301528607 with the Assessing Authority, Hisar. Vide order dated 09.01.2001 (Annexure P-1), the Assessing Authority concluded the assessment proceedings with respect to assessment year 1999-2000 and the returned version of the assessee was accepted. 2. The Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner-cum-Assessing Authority, Hisar initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 31 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 by issuing notices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder:- "15. Hence, from the legal position as discussed, it would follow that it is not mandatory in every case that the cross-examination of the third party should invariably be allowed by the Assessing Authority. Decidedly, the assessment proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings and subject to observance of the principles of natural justice. Whether cross-examination of a person providing information is required or not will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case under assessment. However, in the present case as pointed out in paras 8, 10 and 14 above, there was deficiency in the observance of the principles of natural justice amounting to violation thereof. The information gathered from the third party and relied upon by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice and the petitioner was again called to appear before the Assessing Authority on or before 28.04.2015. 8. The petitioner gave its reply on 12.06.2015 (Annexure P-10) contending that the Tribunal in the majority, already held that cross-examination of third party was warranted and reassessment order was violative of principles of natural justice and it was requested that the reassessment proceedings against the petitioner should be dropped and an amount of Rs. 17,06,322/- alongwith interest be refunded to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner, thereafter, gave an application to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Hisar dated 27.04.2018 (Annexure P- 11) for grant of refund. 10. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such order by the assessing authority. In the present case, since the High Court, while dismissing the appeal (VATAP-173-2013) of the State of Haryana vide order dated 05.12.2014 (Annexure P-6) had not remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority, hence limitation of two years as per Section 18 of Act, 2003 cannot start unless an order is received by the Assessing Authority to start the reassessment proceedings again. 13. Another affidavit of Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, Panchkula dated 18.03.2020 has been filed. In this affidavit, it is stated that the Department had challenged order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the Tribunal by way of VATAP-173-2013 in the High Court, which was dismissed on 05.12.2014. The High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P-9). He has argued that since the provision for filing review under Section 35 was available with the department, the Assessing Authority could not initiate reassessment proceedings on its own level. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the provisions of Section 18 of HVAT Act to decide the remanded case within two years cannot be made applicable in this case as the Tribunal had not remanded the case back and the case is to be remanded even now to the Assessing Authority keeping in view that the High Court had dismissed the VATAP-173-2013 filed by the State holding that right of cross-examination to the third party cannot be denied to assessee during reassessment proceedings. Moreover, an application (Application for d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the time taken from 03.10.2012 till 09.01.2020 (date of filing application) i.e. 8 years cannot be condoned as per Section 35 of the Act, 2003 which reads as under: "(1) Any person including an authority under this Act considering himself aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal and who, from the discovery of any new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when such order was made, or on account of some mistake or error of law of facts, desires to obtain a review of the order made against the State or him, may apply for a review of such order to the Tribunal. 2. The application for review shall be preferred within one year from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
