TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be any bar on the State's power to do the ground-work for enforcement of a Statute, especially the tax statute where complete mechanism would be required to give effect to the provisions of the Statute for recovery of tax. The State of Haryana had issued notification on 31.3.2003 for appointment of Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (ST) as Revisional Authority. But at any rate, the revisional authority had not exercised any power before the 'appointed day'. Rather, challenge to the order passed by the revisional authority in the present case is dated 30.8.2011 and that is relating to the assessment year 2005-2006 i.e., much after the 'appointed day'. The impugned notification was issued on 31.3.2003 notifying the appointment of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er company is registered under the VAT Act in the name and style of M/s H.M. Mehra Co., and is being represented by Gaurav Mehra, its Director. The petitioner company is having a manufacturing and processing unit at G.T. Road, Kundli, District Sonepat (Haryana). Challenge in the present writ petition is to the validity of the notification dated 31.03.2003 and jurisdiction acquired by the State. As per the petitioner, the VAT Act came into operation only w.e.f. 1.4.2003 and as such enforcement of notification dated 31.03.2003 is not permissible and the action taken by the State under the said notification is not binding upon the petitioner being per-se without jurisdiction. Grounds taken in the petition are that the words and expression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non est and has no legal validity. The petitioner prayed that the impugned notification dated 31.03.2003 (Annexure P/1) be quashed and the subsequent order dated 30.08.2011 (Annexure P/3) for the assessment year 2005-2006 passed by the Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner (ST)-cum-Revisional Authority, Sonepat in purported exercise of the powers under the notification dated 31.3.2003, being without jurisdiction be also set-aside. 5. Respondent-State has taken the stand that respondent No.3, i.e., Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner (ST)-cum-Revisional Authority, Sonepat has passed a very reasonable, fair, legal and well reasoned order which is in conformity with the VAT Act and Rules framed thereunder. The revisional authority, i.e., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Governor of Haryana for VAT Act was obtained. 26.03.2003 ii). The Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was notified on. 28.03.2003 Iii). Impugned notification Annexure P/1 issued by the State Government. 31.03.2003 iv). Appointed day, as per Section 1(c) of the Act. 01.04.2003 8. To decide the present controversy, the points for decision would be:- 1). Whether a Notification could be issued under the VAT Act on 31.3.2003 when the Act itself came into force on 01.04.2003? 2). Whether issuance of impugned notification amounts to retrospecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... But at any rate, the revisional authority had not exercised any power before the 'appointed day'. Rather, challenge to the order passed by the revisional authority in the present case is dated 30.8.2011 and that is relating to the assessment year 2005-2006 i.e., much after the 'appointed day'. 10. The matter was before the Tribunal and vide order dated 23.1.2007, this legal point was also raised and the learned Tribunal has rightly held that as per provisions of Section 21 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1956, the State is well within its power to frame rules or byelaws and issuing order between the passing and commencement of the enactment. For ready reference, Section 21 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1956 is ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00] 246 ITR 693 (Bom), which deals with the difference between lack of jurisdiction and irregular exercise of authority/jurisdiction. A proceeding is a nullity when the authority taking it has no power or seisin over the case. 13. Reliance was also placed upon decision of Hon ble Apex Court in The State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., MANU/SC/1185/2017, where the matter in controversy was whether the exercise of revisional power by the Authority after the repeal of the Act could be sustainable or justified. However, facts of both these judgments are quite distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand, because in the present case, challenge is to the notification dated 31.03.2003 only on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
