TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e P/7) passed by Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, "the Tribunal") in STA No.173-174 of 2011-12, whereby the preliminary issue raised by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Petitioner company is registered under the VAT Act in the name and style of M/s H.M. Mehra & Co., and is being represented by Gaurav Mehra, its Director. The petitioner company is having a manufacturing and processing unit at G.T. Road, Kundli, District Sonepat (Haryana). Challenge in the present writ petition is to the validity of the notification dated 31.03.2003 and jurisdiction acquired by the State. As per the petitioner, the VAT Act came into operation only w.e.f. 1.4.2003 and as such enforcement of notification dated 31.03.2003 is not permissible and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ressions are unambiguous and clear. However, the Tribunal ignored the basic law contained in the Statute and the order passed by the Tribunal despite remand of the matter by this Court is non est and has no legal validity. The petitioner prayed that the impugned notification dated 31.03.2003 (Annexure P/1) be quashed and the subsequent order dated 30.08.2011 (Annexure P/3) for the assessment year 2005-2006 passed by the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (ST)-cum-Revisional Authority, Sonepat in purported exercise of the powers under the notification dated 31.3.2003, being without jurisdiction be also set-aside. 5. Respondent-State has taken the stand that respondent No.3, i.e., Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (ST)-cum-Revisiona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the VAT Act. For the purpose of decision of present writ petition, certain dates would be most relevant. The same are depicted below :- (i). Assent of the Governor of Haryana for VAT Act was obtained. 26.03.2003 ii). The Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was notified on. 28.03.2003 Iii). Impugned notification Annexure P/1 issued by the State Government. 31.03.2003 iv). Appointed day, as per Section 1(c) of the Act. 01.04.2003 8. To decide the present controversy, the points for decision would be:- 1). Whether a Notification could be issued under the VAT Act on 31.3.2003 when the Act itself came into force on 01.04.2003? 2). Whether issuance of impugned notification amounts to retrosp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity. But at any rate, the revisional authority had not exercised any power before the 'appointed day'. Rather, challenge to the order passed by the revisional authority in the present case is dated 30.8.2011 and that is relating to the assessment year 2005-2006 i.e., much after the 'appointed day'. 10. The matter was before the Tribunal and vide order dated 23.1.2007, this legal point was also raised and the learned Tribunal has rightly held that as per provisions of Section 21 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1956, the State is well within its power to frame rules or byelaws and issuing order between the passing and commencement of the enactment. For ready reference, Section 21 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1956 i....