TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irrespective of the fact whether it is recovered as lease money, rental, higher purchase instalments or by whatever name it be called. With regard to territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal has taken a view that the appellant is an assessee registered at Panchkula under the Haryana VAT Act and has also paid some voluntary tax at Panchkula. Since the equipment/machinery/vehicles were leased out in the State of Haryana, therefore Haryana is the 'situs of sale'. It has further been observed by the Tribunal that if the goods are located within the State at the time of use, the State shall be deemed to be the 'situs of sale' and as such rejected the argument that merely because head office of assessee is at Chandigarh and agreemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009-2010, 282 and 437 of 2010-2011 filed by the assessee-M/s Haryana Financial Corporation Panchkula for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. The instant appeal under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act 2003 is against the order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure A-8) passed by the Tribunal in STA No.180 of 2009-10 pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05. A brief factual backdrop would be necessary. Appellant herein is a Corporation established under the State Financial Corporation Act 1951 and the State of Haryana is a major stake holder in the Corporation. In the year 1993-94, the Corporation decided to start leasing activities providing for 100% finance of equipment(s) and giving the same on leas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch decision came to be fructified by issuance of a circular dated 21.04.2000 at Annexure A-3. Furthermore, with a view to recover the dues in the leasing portfolio, the appellant-Corporation even floated a liberal Scheme of Settlement of Lease Amount dated 16.06.2003 (Annexure A-4) also termed as One Time Settlement Scheme. For the assessment year 2004-05 Corporation filed its returns reflecting a gross turnover of Rs.2,70,343/- and deposited the requisite tax. Case of the appellant was taken up for scrutiny by the ETO-cum-Assessing Authority, Panchkula. The Assessing Authority pointed out that there is a difference of Rs.1,25,65,053/- in the returns furnished. The appellant-Corporation responded by taking a stand that such amount was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax can be levied. It has vehemently been urged that head office of the appellant-Corporation is at Chandigarh and all the agreements are entered at the head office and as such the taxable event has not occurred in the State of Haryana. It is asserted that as per settled law, tax cannot be levied in a state where 'situs of sale is not there. It was then argued by counsel that the appellant had converted the amount of outstanding lease rentals into a loan amount which could have been settled under the One Time Settlement Scheme opted by the lessees. Since the amount had been recovered not as outstanding lease amount but as a recovery of loan amount, the same could not have been equated with the lease rentals on which tax could have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of use, the State shall be deemed to be the 'situs of sale' and as such rejected the argument that merely because head office of assessee is at Chandigarh and agreements were entered into at Chandigarh, it would deprive the authorities in Haryana to levy tax on the transactions which have taken place within the State. The Tribunal while taking such view has even referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. And another vs. State of Mahrashtra (2000) 119 Sale Tax cases 182. We find that the question of law as culled out at serial No.(i) is no longer res integra. The issue would be covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. (supra) wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivery or use takes place. The same view has thereafter been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited vs. State of Karnataka and others 2020 (3) SCC 354. It is the conceded factual premise at the hands of learned State counsel that the agreement(s) in question took place not in the State of Haryana but at Chandigarh. Under such circumstances the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Limited (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case and in favour of the assessee i.e. the appellant-Corporation. The question of law at serial no.(i) culled out hereinabove is as such answered in favour of the assessee. We are constrained to o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
