Builder's Appeal Dismissed: HC Upholds Tribunal's Decision on Lumpsum Tax Under HVAT Act Sections 9 & 36, Rule 49.

The appeal under Section 36 of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003, was dismissed by the HC. The appellant, a builder, challenged the revisional proceedings initiated by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner for the assessment year 2008-2009. The Tribunal found the extension of the limitation period justified due to adjournments requested by the appellant. The appellant's argument against the liability of lumpsum tax payment was rejected, with the Tribunal citing Section 9 and Rule 49 of the HVAT Act. The HC upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal under Section 36 of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003 against the order passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, dismissal of appeal, assessment for the year 2008-2009, revisional proceedings, validity of Section 9 read with Rule 49 of HVAT Act/Rules, extension of limitation, liability of lumpsum payment of tax.

Assessment for the year 2008-2009:
The appellant, a builder, filed returns in compliance with the Haryana VAT Act for the assessment year 2008-2009. The appellant opted for a lumpsum contract under Section 9 of the Act. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner initiated revisional proceedings, which were challenged in court. Various notices for revision were received, leading to a demand raised by the Revisional Authority. The appellant appealed to the Haryana Tax Tribunal, which later dismissed the appeal based on the appellant's liability to pay tax before a specified date.

Extension of Limitation:
The appellant argued that the revisional order was beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal, however, noted that the revisional proceedings were adjourned multiple times at the appellant's request. The Tribunal found the delay in passing the order justified due to the circumstances and adjournments requested by the appellant, thus extending the limitation period.

Liability of Lumpsum Payment of Tax:
The appellant contended that they were not liable to pay lumpsum tax prior to a certain date. The Tribunal rejected this argument, citing provisions in Section 9 and Rule 49 of the HVAT Act, which allowed for lumpsum tax payment by contractors. The appellant was found liable to pay lump sum tax up to a specified date.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's findings were upheld, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit based on the Tribunal's decision.

---