TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....VAT Act") can be undertaken only by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling ( for short 'ACAR') by exercising suo motu power or whether a dealer who invited clarification and advance ruling from ACAR can also seek for review being not satisfied with its order? 2. The factual matrix of the case shorn of unnecessary details are thus: (a) The petitioner is a Government of India Enterprise dealing with natural gas i.e., buying and selling of natural gas as per the directives of the Government of India from time to time. It obtained VAT registration. In the matter of purchasing of natural gas from Ravva-1 and Ravva Satellite of Cairn India Limited during the period from 01.12.2008 to 31.10.2014 as per the guidelines issued by the M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent issued notice of Assessment of VAT dated 12.11.2020 proposing to reject the claim of ITC of Rs. 16,70,84,426/- which was claimed through the VAT returns for the month of November, 2016. The petitioner filed objections against the said notice vide its letters dated 04.12.2020 and 15.12.2020. The 1st respondent issued another revised notice. As there was an urgency involved for the disposal of the appeal pending before the Tribunal, the petitioner vide memo dated 17.12.2020 approached the Tribunal seeking hearing of the appeal on out of turn basis. Since the Tribunal was functioning only half a day for a week i.e., on every Friday and as the Chairman of the Tribunal is functioning as Full Additional Charge and holding regular post of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tnam has been officiating as Full Additional Charge of the post of Chairman, A.P. VAT Appellate Tribunal and taking up the matters only half a day on every Friday and in those circumstances his appeal could not be taken up and hence in order to get speedy justice, the petitioner filed review application and submitted request letter to 3rd respondent to direct the ACAR to hear the petitioner on priority basis. However, the 3rd respondent on misconception of law, made endorsement as if the review at the instance of the applicant is not entertainable and review can be taken up suo motu by the ACAR only. He would submit that in a number of matters, the ACAR has taken up the review applications filed by the concerned applicants. He filed copies ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the applicant of being heard and where the application is rejected, reasons for such rejections shall be recorded in the order. (3) No officer or any other authority of the Department shall proceed to decide any issue in respect of which an application has been made by an applicant under this Section and is pending. (4) The order of the authority shall be binding:- (i) on the applicant who had sought clarification; (ii) in respect of the goods or transaction in relation to which a clarification was sought; and (iii) on all the officers other than the Commissioner: Provided the dealer does not file an appeal before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal within 30 days of the Ruling in the manner prescribed. (5) The authority for clarif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ruling of the ARA under Section 67(5) of the Act is not tenable. On a literal construction thereof, it cannot be said that the power of review under Section 67(5) can only be exercised by the ARA suo motu or at the instance of the applicant-dealer, for the words used therein are "affected parties". Any dealer who is affected by the ruling/ clarification of the ARA would also be entitled to seek review, amendment or revocation of such a ruling. As Section 67(4)(ii) also binds dealers, other than the applicant, they would fall within the ambit of "affected parties" under Section 67(5) of the Act [emphasis supplied]. Unlike the proviso to Section 67(4) where a time limit of 30 days is prescribed for the applicant-dealer to prefer an appeal be....