M/S Kaithal Solvent PVT. LTD. Through Its Director vs. State Of Haryana And Another
Held
The High Court dismissed the appeal, not on merits, but on the ground that the amount involved was only ₹1,54,606/-. The Court noted that the substantial questions of law raised were left open. The Tribunal had upheld the Revisional Authority's order, stating that the issue was covered by a previous Tribunal order in a similar case (M/s Cheeka Solvent Pvt. Ltd.). The Tribunal also held that ITC on opening stock, considered by the Assessing Authority, could not be challenged in the revisional proceedings, as it should have been challenged in a first appeal. The Tribunal further affirmed the formula adopted by the Revisional Authority for proportionate reversal of ITC on tax-free goods, as previously upheld in the cited case.
Facts
The appellant, M/s. Kaithal Solvent Pvt. Ltd., is a registered dealer under the Haryana Value Added Tax (HVAT) Act, engaged in manufacturing Rice Bran and Sunflower Oil and de-oiled cakes. The Assessing Authority framed an assessment for the period 2010-11. Subsequently, the Revisional Authority issued a notice seeking reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed on the sale of tax-free goods. Following this, a revisional order was passed, creating an additional demand of ₹1,54,606/-. The appellant appealed to the Haryana Tax Tribunal, which upheld the Revisional Authority's order. The appellant then filed the present appeal before the High Court against the Tribunal's order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Haryana Tax Tribunal was justified in upholding the revisional authority's order when there was no impropriety or illegality in the assessment order, as argued by the appellant? 2. Whether the opening and closing stock of rice bran, rice bran oil, and rice bran de-oiled cake, along with purchases of machinery, should be included in the gross turnover for reversing Input Tax Credit on a prorata basis under the HVAT Act, even in the absence of a specific formula, as contended by the appellant? 3. Whether any ambiguity in the Act should be resolved in favour of the subject and against the State, as argued by the appellant? The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 15(3), Section 34, Section 9(2), Section 36
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VAT Appeal No. 73 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.09.2019 M/s. Kaithal Solvent Pvt. Ltd., Cheeka, District Kaithal through its Director Sh. Chhaju Ram .......... Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another .......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA Present: Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate for the appellant. **** JASWANT SINGH, J.
The appellant, a Private Limited Company, has filed the present appeal under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short HVAT Act) against the order dated 03.10.2018 (Annexure A-5) passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short the Tribunal) raising the following questions of law:- “ (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Haryana Tax Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of revisional authority where there is no impropriety or illegality in the assessment order? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the opening and closing stock of
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.