TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revision petition challenging Tax Tribunal's order dismissed, beyond limitation period, no question of law.</h1> <h3>State of Himachal Pradesh and others Versus M/s. Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd.</h3> State of Himachal Pradesh and others Versus M/s. Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to the order passed by the Tax Tribunal in Rectification Application and the invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 48(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.Challenge to Tribunal's Order in Rectification Application:The petitioners sought to assail the order passed by the Himachal Pradesh Tax Tribunal in Appeal No. 10 of 2016 and Rectification Application No. 3/2018. The respondent, a dealer engaged in the sale of mobile/cell phones, challenged the imposition of VAT at 13.75% on chargers sold separately, contending that chargers were part of the mobile phone and should be charged at the same rate of 5% applicable to mobile phones. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Assessing Authority and the first Appellate Authority.Invocation of Revisional Jurisdiction:The petitioners invoked revisional jurisdiction under Section 48(1) of the VAT Act, challenging the Tribunal's order in the Rectification Application and the principal order passed by the Tribunal. The Court clarified that revisional jurisdiction can only be exercised against orders passed by the Tax Tribunal under specific sections of the VAT Act, within 90 days of communication of the order, and if there is a question of law arising from an erroneous decision or failure to decide a question of law.Court's Decision:The Court held that the order passed by the Tribunal in the Rectification Application was not open to challenge under Section 48 of the VAT Act. The petitioners were deemed to be beyond the period of limitation to challenge the order dated 14.06.2017. Since no question of law arose for consideration, the revision petition was dismissed. The Court found that the Tribunal's order was not erroneous and did not amount to a non-decision of a question of law, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.Conclusion:In conclusion, the Court dismissed the revision petition as the order passed by the Tribunal was found to be neither erroneous nor a failure to decide a question of law. The petitioners were deemed to be outside the period of limitation for challenging the order, resulting in the dismissal of the revision petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
