TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of Punjab. As the Appellate Authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction on the plea raised by the petitioner, without even disturbing the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority regarding transaction being in the course of inter-state sale from the State of Punjab, the matter deserves to be remitted back to the Appellate Authority for dealing with the alternative prayer made by the petitioner - petition disposed off - matter remitted back to the Appellate Authority to consider and decide the leftout issue - date of hearing shall be fixed by the Appellate Authority with prior intimation to the parties concerned. - CWP No.15426 of 2015 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 26-9-2016 - MR. RAJESH BINDAL AND MR. DARSHAN SINGH, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. None for State of Bihar RAJESH BINDAL, J 1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 30.4.2015 passed by the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, New Delhi (for short 'the Appellate Authority') in appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.5.2010 passed by the Value Added Tax Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was submitted that this Court has power of judicial review of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, which was constituted in terms of the directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 105 STC 152 (SC). He further referred to the order passed by the Appellate Authority in Hindustan Zinc Limited vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2012) 47 VST 1 (CSTAA), where under similar circumstances, the Appellate Authority directed for transfer of refundable amount from the State, where it was paid on the local sale to the State from where sale in the course of inter-state sale, was affected. The prayer is that the Appellate Authority having failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 22 (1A) of the Act, the matter deserves to be remitted back to the Appellate Authority. 5. Learned counsel for the State of Punjab submitted that till such time the petitioner is not disputing the fact that the transaction in question was in the course of inter-state sale from the State of Punjab to the State of Bihar, the State of Punjab does not have any objection to the matter being remitted back to the Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act provided that the Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings as constituted under the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be notified as the Appellate Authority under this Act. 14. Section 25 of the Act provides for transfer of pending proceedings, whereas Section 26 thereof provides for binding nature of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority on all State Governments. 15. Section 22 (1B) of the Act, which is relevant for the controversy in dispute, is reproduced hereunder:- Section 22 (1B): The Authority may issue direction for refund of tax collected by a State which has been held by the Authority to be not due to that State, or alternatively, direct that State to transfer the refundable amount to the State to which central sales tax is due on the same transaction: Provided that the amount of tax directed to be refunded by a State shall not exceed the amount of central sales tax payable by the appellant on the same transaction. 16. Section 22 (1B) of the Act clearly provides that the authority has power to issue direction for refund of the tax collected by a State, which has been held by the Appellate Authority to be not due to that State or alternatively d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012] 340 ITR 353 (AAR), the Authority has, however, observed: But permitting a challenge in the High Court would become counter productive since writ petitions are likely to be pending in High Courts for years and in the case of some High Courts, even in Letters Patent Appeals and then again in the Supreme Court. It appears to be appropriate to point out that considering the object of giving an advance ruling expeditiously, it would be consistent with the object sought to be achieved, if the Supreme Court were to entertain an application for Special Leave to appeal directly from a ruling of this Authority, preliminary or final, and render a decision thereon rather than leaving the parties to approach the High Courts for such a challenge. We have considered the aforesaid observations of the Authority but we do not think that we can hold that an advance ruling of the Authority can only be challenged under Article 136 of the Constitution before this Court and not under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution before the High Court. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (supra), a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that the power vested in the High Courts to exerci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
