TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es within a month from the date of the import. This form was furnished by the dealer which has been accepted – revision application accepted. Regarding the issue of rebate - Held that: - The sale has been made to a export house and form 'H' issued under Rule 12(1) read with Section 5 of the CST Act has been placed on record. Rebate granted. Appeal allowed – decided in favor of assesse. - VAT Appeal No. 3 of 2011 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 3-8-2016 - MR. RAJESH BINDAL AND MR. HARINDER SIINGH SIDHU, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate For The Respondent : Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of four appeals bearing VAT Appeal Nos. 3, 4,5 and 6 of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the first appellate authority. It was directed that rebate of tax paid on purchase of paddy, rice manufactured out of which was exported, for which form 'H' was furnished, be granted. The tax be re-computed following the earlier judgment of the Sales Tax Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 154 of 2002-03-M/s Rama Krishna Trading Co. Jalandhar v. State of Punjab. The State, being aggrieved against the order passed by the first appellate authority, preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 1.1.2009, accepted the same and set aside the direction given by the first appellate authority, whereby the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority for re-calculation of the tax. The appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India. There is no condition attached. The paddy and rice have been held to be a single commodity for the purpose of export in terms of Section 15 (ca) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Reference was also made to the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another, (2010) 36 VST 1 (SC). It was further submitted that transaction of sale of rice was in the course of export outside the territory of India was accepted by the Assessing Authority while framing assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and it was so recorded in the order of assessment that 'H' forms have been perused and placed on record, meaning thereby that those were verified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ' case (supra). In that case, the following questions of law were considered: 1. Whether in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Pb. Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Veeru Mal Monga Sons v. State of Haryana and others, the orders of the Hon'ble Sales Tax Tribunal accepting the revisionists application are sustainable in law ? 2. Whether the revisionists are entitled to rebate of Tax U/s 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 ? 3. Whether the judgment given by the Hon'ble Pb. Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Veeru Mal Monga Sons has a binding force on the Punjab Sales Tax Tribunal, when there is no direct judgment contrary to the judgment given by the Hon'ble Pb. Haryana High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch of this Court rendered in the case of M/s Veerumal Monga and Sons (supra) would not be applicable to the instant references made to this Court because in that case it was found as a fact that the transaction involving the purchase of paddy by the dealer did not fall within the ambit of Section 5(3) read with Section 15(a) of the CST Act. It was further found that it was not a transaction preceding the sale or purchase of paddy occasioning export thereof outside India. However, in the present case, the facts are entirely different. The sale has been made to a export house and form 'H' issued under Rule 12(1) read with Section 5 of the CST Act has been placed on record. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal in its conclusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of the Act in question. All the issues raised by the State, which was the petitioner before this court, were considered and it was opined that the Tribunal had rightly decided the issue in favour of the dealer holding him entitled to rebate of tax on paddy in terms of Section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Act. With a view to maintain consistency, we deem it appropriate to follow the earlier judgment of Division Bench of this court and answer the question in negative, i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. As no such direction was given by the Division Bench of this court dealing with the issue earlier, the appeals are accordingly accepted. The directions given by the Tribunal to the extent ...... and prove that the purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
