TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealer who is affected by the ruling of ACAR. Then coming to the argument of the learned Government Pleader that since the petitioner has already filed the appeal and the same is pending and therefore, the review petition is not maintainable is concerned, we do not find force in the said argument in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances. It is true that the petitioner filed the appeal before the VAT Tribunal - However, since the regular Chairman of the Tribunal is not functioning and as the Principle District Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam is holding the functions of the Tribunal as a Full Additional Charge only half-a-day for a week and in the meanwhile the notice of assessment of VAT dated 12.11.2020 was issued by 1st responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchasing of natural gas from Ravva-1 and Ravva Satellite of Cairn India Limited during the period from 01.12.2008 to 31.10.2014 as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MOPNG), GOI, the petitioner claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of ₹ 16,70,84,426/- against the tax payable for the month of November, 2016 and disclosed in the Form VAT-200 for that month and paid the balance tax. The petitioner wanted to clarify the correctness of its claim of ITC and thus submitted an application dated 20.12.2016 seeking clarification through advance ruling. Since no order was passed, the petitioner filed another application dated 30.04.2019 seeking advance ruling and finally an order dated 15.02.2018 was passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Tribunal was functioning only half a day for a week i.e., on every Friday and as the Chairman of the Tribunal is functioning as Full Additional Charge and holding regular post of Principal District Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and also due to lack of quorum, the Tribunal could not take up the appeal. In those circumstances as there was no possibility of immediate disposal of the appeal (TA.02/2021) by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed review petition dated 14.12.2020 seeking review of the order of the ACAR dated 15.02.2018 mentioning certain reasons in its review application. In view of the urgency involved in the matter, the petitioner vide letter dated 22.12.2020 approached the 3rd respondent and requested to direct the ACAR to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review can be taken up suo motu by the ACAR only. He would submit that in a number of matters, the ACAR has taken up the review applications filed by the concerned applicants. He filed copies of the orders in A.R.Com/92/2013 dated 08.06.2016 and A.R.Com/116/2007, dated 28.04.2010. He thus prayed to set aside the impugned endorsement of the 3rd respondent and direct the respondent 2 and 3 to take up the review petition at the earliest. 5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes would argue that the review petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the order of the ACAR and the same is pending. 6. We gave our anxious consideration. The first and foremost question that en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; and (iii) on all the officers other than the Commissioner: Provided the dealer does not file an appeal before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal within 30 days of the Ruling in the manner prescribed. (5) The authority for clarifications shall have power to review, amend or revoke its rulings at any time for good and sufficient cause by giving an opportunity to the affected parties. An order giving effect to such review or amendment or revocation shall not be subject to the period of limitation. (6) The Commissioner may also refer any matter for opinion of the Authority for clarification without prejudice to his authority. Sub-Section (5) pellucidly tells that authority for clarifications shall have the power to review, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicant, they would fall within the ambit of affected parties under Section 67(5) of the Act [emphasis supplied]. Unlike the proviso to Section 67(4) where a time limit of 30 days is prescribed for the applicant-dealer to prefer an appeal before the STAT against the ruling of the ARA, Section 67(5), by the use of the words 'at any time', does not prescribe any period of limitation for invoking the ARA's power to review, amend or revoke its earlier ruling. All that is required of an affected dealer, to invoke the said provision, is to show good and sufficient cause for seeking review, amendment or revocation of the earlier ruling (a) Further, order in A.R.Com/92/2013 dated 08.06.2016 and other order in A.R.Com/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
