2022 (4) TMI 248

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ution of its work-contracts, supplied steel to the contractors. The Assessing Authority, Shimla vide order dated 12.02.2001 burdened the petitioner with sales tax liability to the tune of Rs. 10,82,953/- for the years 1995-96, 1996- 97 and 1997-98 by treating supply of steel to the contractors as sale. Petitioner assailed the aforesaid order of Assessing Authority before the Additional Excise & Taxation Commissioner-cum- Appellate Authority (South Zone), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla under Section 30 of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 (for short 'Appellate Authority'). The appeal of petitioner was allowed on 10.10.2002. It was held that neither the sale nor transfer of goods could be said to have taken place between petitioner a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Section 31 (1) of the HPGST Act, 1968 which was saved under Section 64 (3) of the VAT Act, 2005 and since no limitation was provided under the HPGST Act for exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the limitation provided under sub Section (1) of Section 46 of the VAT Act, 2005 would not be applicable. 5. Aggrieved against the order dated 28.7.2016 passed by the Tribunal in Revision No. 03/2011, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition on the following questions of law: 1. Whether assessment which has been accepted long ago, say about seven years ago can be reopened by exercising the powers under Section 321(1) of the HP General Sales Tax Act 1968 with Section 46 (1) of the HP Value Added Tax Act, 2005.? ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y to those proceedings also, which were initiated after coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005?" 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 8. There is no dispute as to fact situation that the Appellate Authority had passed the order under Section 30 of the HPGST Act, 1968 on 10.10.2002 and the Revisional Authority had initiated suo motu revisional proceedings in the year 2009 i.e. after lapse of a period of seven years. 9. The VAT Act, 2005 came into force on 31st day of March, 2005. The HPGST Act, 1968 was repealed from the date of coming into force of the VAT Act, 2005. Such repeal, however, was subject to certain savings as provided....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rror in misreading and misconstruing the provisions of Section 64 (3) of the VAT Act, 2005. The impugned order passed by learned Tribunal, thus cannot sustain. 11. The bar of limitation, to initiate revisional jurisdiction under Section 46 (1) of the VAT Act, 2005 within five years of the notice of order sought to be revised, clearly applied to the facts of the instant case. The Revisional Authority could not revise the order dated 10.10.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority by exercising revisional jurisdiction initiated after lapse of five years. 12. We wish to add that even assumingly no limitation was prescribed for exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the Act, the jurisdiction to upset an order passed by lawful authority canno....