Limitation and lump sum VAT composition scheme upheld where delay was explained by assessee's adjournments

A revisional order may be sustained despite apparent delay where the delay is satisfactorily explained by repeated adjournments sought by the assessee, so the limitation challenge fails. The Haryana VAT composition scheme under Section 9 read with Rule 49 applies where the assessee has opted for lump sum taxation, and liability continues under that regime up to the relevant cut-off date. On these principles, the Tribunal's findings on both limitation and lump sum tax liability were upheld, and no interference was made with the assessment of tax under the composition arrangement.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revisional order was barred by limitation under Section 34 of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003; (ii) whether the assessee was liable to pay lump sum tax under Section 9 read with Rule 49 of the Haryana VAT Act and Rules.

Issue (i): whether the revisional order was barred by limitation under Section 34 of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003.

Analysis: The limitation period was held to be extendable in the facts of the case because the delay in passing the revisional order occurred during a period when repeated adjournments were sought on behalf of the assessee. The record showed that the matter was fixed on several dates at the instance of the assessee, and the revisional authority passed the order shortly after the extended sequence of hearings. The delay was treated as satisfactorily explained and within the exceptional circumstances contemplated by the provision.

Conclusion: The challenge on limitation failed and the revisional order was held to be within time.

Issue (ii): whether the assessee was liable to pay lump sum tax under Section 9 read with Rule 49 of the Haryana VAT Act and Rules.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permitted a contractor or developer to opt for lump sum payment in lieu of tax under Section 9, and Rule 49 specifically provided for a lump sum scheme in respect of contractors. On the facts, the assessee had opted for that regime, and the liability to pay tax under the composition arrangement continued up to the relevant cut-off date. The Tribunal's view that the appellant remained liable under the composition scheme was upheld.

Conclusion: The challenge to lump sum tax liability failed and the assessee was held liable under the composition scheme.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed since no interference was warranted with the Tribunal's findings on limitation or on the assessee's tax liability under the lump sum scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional order passed beyond the ordinary limitation period may still be sustained where the delay is satisfactorily explained by adjournments sought by the assessee and the statutory composition scheme continues to govern the assessee's tax liability according to the terms of the applicable provisions.

---