9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties, the issue involved therein is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No. 15 of 2013. 3. VAT Appeal No. 15 of 2013 has been preferred by the assessee under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated June 14, 2012, annexure A-4 passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") in Sales Tax Appeal No. 171 of 2011-12 for the assessment year 2003-04. Vide C. M. No. 8355 CII of 2014, the following amended substantial questions of law have been proposed to be raised: "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the notification issued prior to the introduction of the Haryana VATAct could confer the valid jurisdiction on an officer to exer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder, the assessing authority had specifically allowed the sales made against forms E1 and E2 and gave a categorical finding that the goods had been sold while those were in transit and were thus exempt under section 6(2)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the CST Act"). The said case was taken up for revision by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Range)-cum-revisional authority, Faridabad (in short, "the JETC") who issued a notice dated February 6, 2009 to the appellant as to why exemption claim under section 6(2) of the CST Act be not disallowed. Vide order dated June 24, 2011, annexure A-2, the revisional authority reversed the exemption allowed under section 6(2) of the Act by the Assessing Authority. The expense ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3, 2014 passed in H. M. Mehra & Co. v. State of Haryana [2014] 71 VST 437 (P&H). 7. The primary issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is that whether the revisional power was properly conferred on the JETC or not. 8. The matter is no longer res integra. This court while delving into identical issue in VATAPNo. 102 of 2013 (H. M. Mehra & Co. v. State of Haryana [2014] 71 VST 437 (P&H)) decided on January 13, 2014 after discussing certain provisions of the Act set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and referred the matter back to it to adjudicate the same after hearing counsel for the parties in respect of the issues raised in accordance with law. 9. In view of the above, the order dated June 14, 2012, annexure A-4 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
