2023 (10) TMI 419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, for respondents No. 2 & 3. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CHIEF JUSTICE. This Civil Revision is admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. H.P. Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.10.2020 passed by Respondent No. 2 is not maintainable as the same has been passed in consequences of or giving effect to the order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Tribunal though the Ld. Tribunal vide order dated 29.08.2013 has set aside the order passed by Respondent No. 2 and order passed in pursuance thereto is a fresh order?" 2) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hereby, the petitioner preferred Revision under Section 46(3) before the H.P. VAT Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal" in short). 11) During the pendency of the said Revision before the Tribunal, respondent no. 3 passed the re-assessment order on 10.03.2012, whereby, it had treated the transactions in question to be sale instead of works contract. 12) On 29.08.2013, the Tribunal set-aside the order of the Revisional Authority as well as the consequential order passed by the Assessing Authority. It held that the petitioner was entitled to undertake works contract being a manufacturer; whether a particular contract is a works contract or a contract of sale is to be determined on the basis of the terms and condit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....act' portion is not exigible to tax in Himachal Pradesh, while the 'sale' portion has to be taxed as per prevailing tax rate; and to know the extent of each, one needs to go through the invoices/bills and claims made by the dealer and findings in various judgments delivered during the pendency of the case. 15) He held: (i) the nature of transaction based on invoices and bills very clearly shows that the transaction has elements of sale and labour and services. Approximate ratio of sale and supply of labour and services is roughly 7:1 ( 87.50 : 12.50); (ii) the portion of supply of labour and services will not be part of taxable income; (iii) The remaining portion will be treated as interstate sale taxable at 12....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat by filing the appeal, the petitioner was actually seeking reconsideration of the order dt. 29.08.2013, is patently erroneous in law. We disagree with the view of the Tribunal that the petitioner is trying to reagitate the same issues which stood decided by the Tribunal in its order dt. 29.08.2013 and, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable and cannot be entertained. 19) In our opinion, the order dt. 29.08.2013 passed by the Tribunal, decided only certain broad principles and did not give any findings on the actual facts and had remitted the matter back to the 2nd respondent by directing a Committee of two or three Members of TRU and Assessing Authority to be constituted to examine the case. 20) It was only after the said Commit....