TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not maintainable and cannot be entertained. 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. There is no question of the appellant seeking review and reconsideration of the order dt. 29.08.2013 by filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the order dt. 26.10.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent, as has been wrongly held by the Tribunal - the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CHIEF JUSTICE. AND HON BLE MR. JUSTIC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an additional demand of Rs. 1,85,67,480/-. 5) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional Excise Taxation Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Shimla. 6) The Appellate Authority passed a common order dt. 27.02.2010, remanding the matter to the Assessing Authority with direction to re-examine the issue and to pass a detailed order in accordance with law. 7) In remand proceedings, pursuant to the order dt. 27.02.2010, the Assessing Authority again passed a common order on 18.03.2010 treating the transactions to be works contract and allowed deductions on account of labour and services. 8) The Revisional Authority initiated suo-motu revision proceedings against the petitioner under Section 46 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ines, it remanded the matter back to the Excise Taxation Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (2nd respondent/ Revisional Authority). It also observed: As larger issues having ramification for works contract sector are involved, it would be in the fitness of things if a committee of two or three members of TRU and Assessing authority is constituted to examine the case. This exercise could be completed within a period of two months . 13) The committee constituted in compliance with the above order submitted it s report on 4.9.2015. 14) Seven years after the order of the Tribunal on 29.8.2013 and 5 years after the said report of the committee, the Revisional Authority, on 26.10.2020, set aside the order dt. 18.03.2010 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred a Revision before the H.P. Tax Tribunal as Revision Application no. 1 of 2020. 17) By order dt. 02.07.2021, the said Tribunal held as under:- 6. I have heard the arguments, perused the entire relevant record and the consequential orders dated 26.10.2020 passed by the Ld. Commissioner and the Order dated 19.11.2020 and the statutory provisions. I am of the considered view that by filing the instant application against the consequential orders implementing and giving effect to the Order of this Tribunal dated 29.8.2013, the Applicant is actually seeking review and re-consideration of the said order dated 29.8.2013, for which the HP VAT Act, 2005 and the CST Act, 1956 do not provide any power. The Applicant cannot re-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner was not granted the relief which was expected from the 2nd respondent in his order dt. 26.10.2020, the petitioner is entitled to assail the said order in appeal before the Tribunal. 22) This is because a party should have, at least one right of appeal on findings of fact and the party cannot be left remediless, when in the previous round of litigation before the Tribunal, findings on facts had not been rendered, and only broad guidelines were laid down with a direction to examine individual transactions on merits, which has since been done by the 2nd respondent, which according to the petitioner is erroneous. 23) There is no question of the appellant seeking review and reconsideration of the order dt. 29.08.2013 by filing the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
