TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct - Held that:- the issue stands concluded against the appellant by this Court in the case of M/s AB Sugars Ltd. v. State of Punjab and another [2015 (8) TMI 62 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT]. Therefore, by following the same the appeal is concluded. - Decided against the appellant - VATAP No. 6 & 7 of 2016 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 22-4-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS. RAJ RAHUL GARG, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. M.R. Sharma, Advocate AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing VATAP Nos. 6 and 7 of 2016 as according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the issue involved therein is identical. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from VATAP No. 6 of 2016. 2. An application bearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Authority Cum Excise and Taxation Officer as upheld by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) Amritsar has grossly erred in denying the input tax credit on the purchase tax assessed/paid by the appellant as per order of assessment (Annexure A-1)? 4. Put shortly, the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant is running a sugar mill and is engaged in the business of procurement of sugar cane (Schedule 'H' goods) directly from the farmer and consumed the same for the manufacturing of sugar and its by product. It is having TIN No. 03421050623. It filed its quarterly returns as per provisions of Section 26 of the Act and also the annual return in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant that the issue involved in these appeals stands concluded against the appellant by this Court in VATAP No. 176 of 2013 (M/s AB Sugars Ltd. v. State of Punjab and another) decided on 15.7.2015 . The following substantial questions of law were considered by this Court therein:- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in ignoring the judgment of M/s Gobind Sugar Mills and following the judgment of M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills case despite the fact that the issue and facts in Govind Sugar Mills case are almost identical to the issues and facts of the present case? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is liable to pay tax on the purchase of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lized for the purpose of the Board and the Council as grant but did not indicate that the entirety of this collection was solely earmarked for the purpose of expenditure of the Board or the Council. Such a provision is absent in the enactments before us. Infact, the statement of object and reasons of the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953 expressly state as under:- Statement of Objects and Reasons- With the promulgation of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, with effect from the 8th May, 1952, this regulation of sugarcane industry has become exclusively a Central subject. The State Government are now only concerned with the supply of sugarcane to sugar factories: moreover in view of lean f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aspects which can be gone into only by the Supreme Court and not by this Court for accepting these submissions would in effect result in this Court holding that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagatjit Sugar Mill s case (supra) is not good law. 13. Considering the view taken by us on Mr. Goyal s submission, it is not necessary to consider Mr. Jain s further submission that the appellant has infact challenged the validity of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and that such a challenge could not have been taken before the authorities. 14. In the circumstances, the questions of law, are answered against the appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 7. In view of the above, the present appeals are dismissed in terms o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
