AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner against the order dated 6.5.2010 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Appeal (VAT) No.621 of 2009. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of iron and steel goods including galvanized steel pipes. It has branches in different States, one of which is situated at Patna in the State of Bihar. Tenders for purchase of galvanized steel pipes were floated by the State of Bihar in June, 2006. The petitioner participated in the tendering process and was successful. The material was transferred from the manufacturing unit of the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spite there being enabling provisions to that effect under Section 22 (1A) of the Act. Further relying upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Columbia Sportswear Company vs. Director of Income Tax, (2012) 346 ITR 161 (SC), it was submitted that this Court has power of judicial review of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, which was constituted in terms of the directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 105 STC 152 (SC). He further referred to the order passed by the Appellate Authority in Hindustan Zinc Limited vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2012) 47 VST 1 (CSTAA), where under similar circumstances, the Appellate Authority directed for transfer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppropriated before dispatch thereof from the State of Punjab, at the time of assessment, the claim made by the petitioner that it was a transaction of branch transfer, was rejected and the same was treated as inter-state sale and tax was levied. It was upheld by the Tribunal. 9. In Ashok Leyland Ltd.'s case (supra) dealing with a problem where initially the sale from State 'A' to State 'B' was treated as branch transfer. In State 'B', it was treated as a local sale. However, subsequently State 'A' sought to revise orders and treate the sale in the course of interstate trade instead of branch transfer already allowed, Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed that there is no mechanism to resolve these kin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ernatively, direct that State to transfer the refundable amount to the State to which central sales tax is due on the same transaction: Provided that the amount of tax directed to be refunded by a State shall not exceed the amount of central sales tax payable by the appellant on the same transaction." 16. Section 22 (1B) of the Act clearly provides that the authority has power to issue direction for refund of the tax collected by a State, which has been held by the Appellate Authority to be not due to that State or alternatively direct the State to transfer the refundable amount to the State to which central sales tax is due on the same transaction. However, the amount of refund or transfer is limited to the amount of central sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave to Appeal is entertained by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, were referred to. Rejecting the aforesaid view, it was opined that the order passed by the Appellate Authority can be challenged before the High Court under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. However, the petition challenging the same has to be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and decided as expeditiously as possible. The appeals were disposed of while giving liberty to the parties therein to approach the High Court under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. Relevant paras thereof are extracted below:- "12. In a recent advance ruling in Groupe Industrial Marcel Dassault, In re [2012] 340 ITR 353 (AAR), the Authority has, howe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould be to negate a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Nonetheless, we do understand the apprehension of the Authority that a writ petition may remain pending in the High Court for years, first before a learned Single Judge and thereafter in Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench and as a result the object of Chapter XIX-B of the Act which is to enable an applicant to get an advance ruling in respect of a transaction expeditiously would be defeated. We are, thus, of the opinion that when an advance ruling of the Authority is challenged before the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution, the same should be heard directly by a Division Bench of the High Court and decided as expeditiously as possible....