TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on order and judgment. For convenience, we will refer to the facts from VATAP No. 11 of 2012. 2. The appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law raised in para no. 3 of the appeal which read thus:- "(1) Whether the department is justified in levying the tax upon the selling dealer of appellant i.e. M/s. Haryana Organics as well as the appellant for the same transaction? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in coming to a conclusion that the price of goods sold by the appellant/assessee included the tax despite the fact that this finding has never been given by any of the lower authorities nor it was confronted by the assessee during the course of arguments before this Hon'ble Tribunal? (3) Whether the authorities under the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Organics in the light of the observations made therein. The respondents' appeal against the said order was dismissed by an order and judgment of the Division Bench dated 03.03.2009 (2009) 39 VST 616 (P & H). Thereafter, the respondents, in view of the orders in CWP No. 18240 of 1997, considered the matter afresh and issued the eligibility certificate in favour of M/s. Haryana Organics. The certificates granted sales tax exemption of Rs. 496.82 lacs for a period of 9 years from the date of commercial production namely 31.03.1994 to 30.03.2003. In order words, the exemption was granted in respect of the assessment year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, which are relevant in the above appeals. 4. While the proceedings were pending between M/s. Haryan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 which are relevant in this appeal. 5. The Tribunal by the impugned order, held that in view of M/s. Haryana Organics subsequently becoming entitled to the exemption, the review application was maintainable. The Tribunal, therefore, admitted the review petition. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the appellant was no longer liable to pay the tax. However, the review was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal held:- "9....................So far as purchases of alcohol effected from M/s. Haryana Organics during the year 1998-99 is concerned, by admission of both, the seller and the purchaser, the price of the alcohol charged was inclusive of sales tax applicable at the r....