M/S. Auto Ignition LTD., Faridabad vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The Court noted that the points sought to be raised in the appeal were not urged before the assessing officer or the First Appellate Authority, as observed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant then sought to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to approach the Tribunal again to take recourse to available alternative remedies. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It was clarified that it shall be open to the petitioner to take recourse to remedies available to it in accordance with law. No specific finding was given on the substantial questions of law raised, as the appeal was withdrawn. The operative direction was to permit withdrawal with liberty to pursue other remedies.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Auto Ignition Ltd., Faridabad, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging orders dated 15.03.2012, 17.02.2014, and 21.11.2017, arising from STA No.30 of 2014-15. The appeal was filed under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh, had noted that the points sought to be raised in the present appeal were not urged before the assessing officer or the First Appellate Authority by the assessee. Consequently, the learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to approach the Tribunal again for alternative remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessee-appellant is entitled to input tax credit on tax paid on the purchase of raw material used in the manufacture of goods for research and development of components intended for ultimate buyers, which are then used in the manufacture of goods for sale. This issue turns on the interpretation of provisions related to input tax credit eligibility. 2. Whether the provisions of Section 8 have been complied with. This issue concerns adherence to specific legal provisions, likely related to the tax treatment of the transactions in question. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: Argued that input tax credit should be allowed on raw materials used for research and development of components for sale. Relied on the principle that such inputs contribute to the final saleable product. Also contended that Section 8 was not complied with by the revenue authorities. Revenue/State: Did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the Tribunal's observation that the points were not urged before lower authorities suggests the revenue's position was likely based on the non-urging of these points at earlier stages.