M/S Camco Multi Metal LTD. Faridabad vs. State Of Haryana And Ors.

Held

The Court held that in view of an order of even date passed in VATAP No. 71 of 2012, where a similar matter was remanded to the Tribunal, it was considered appropriate to relegate the petitioner to their alternate remedy of appeal before the Tribunal. The Court permitted the petitioner 30 days to file appeals before the Tribunal. If filed within this period, the appeals would be treated as within limitation and decided on merits, not dismissed on grounds of delay. The primary issue of whether the petitioner should have exhausted the appellate remedy was implicitly decided in favor of the revenue, by directing the petitioner to the Tribunal. The Court did not delve into the merits of the input tax credit disallowance.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Camco Multi Metal Limited, is challenging an assessment order dated 08.11.2012, passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The order disallowed the benefit of input tax credit on the purchase of DEPB. The petitioner's first appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed on 27.08.2014, relying on a clarification issued by the Principal Secretary. The petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition without exhausting the further appellate remedy before the Tribunal. The petitioner is engaged in manufacturing Aluminium Alloy Ingots and Zinc Alloy Ingots, importing Aluminium Scrap and paying import duty. They also purchased DEPB within Haryana, paying tax on it, and used it for paying duty on imported goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is required to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal before approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, given that a similar issue was pending before the Tribunal and the High Court in another case (VATAP No. 71 of 2012)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since a similar issue had already been adjudicated by the Tribunal in M/s Enkay (India) Rubber Co. Private Limited, and an appeal against that decision was pending before the High Court, it was appropriate to approach the High Court directly. They sought to bypass the Tribunal's appellate stage. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue regarding the petitioner's failure to exhaust the appellate remedy. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue would have expected the petitioner to follow the statutory appeal process.