Dismissed

M/S Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Mar 2010GSTR/3/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court answered three questions of law referred by the Tribunal regarding the jurisdiction of the Revising Authority to tax unreported purchases. Relying on a precedent, the court held that Section 40 does not grant such jurisdiction, defeating the subsequent questions on limitation and interest.

What did the court decide?

The reference questions were answered against the revenue.

M/S Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

GSTR No.3 of 2009

¶3

Date of Decision:22.03.2010

¶4

M/s Indian Oil Corportion Limited, Ambala

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶10

Present: Mr.Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Gagandeep Singh Wasu, D.A.G., Haryana, for the respondent.

¶12

¶13

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for adjudication by this Court:-

¶15

1. “Whether the Revising Authority had in terms of Section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 jurisdiction to tax turnover of purchase of goods which though part of assessment record at the time of assessment was not made part of gross turnover or taxable turnover by the assessee or the Assessing Authority and was not assessed to tax?

¶16

2. If answer to the above question is in the negative can such turnover be assessed to tax by the Revising Authority within the limitation laid down in Section 31 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act?

¶17

3. Whether the Revising Authority was justified to levy interest under Section 25(5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act on the amount of tax assessed by him on a turnover which though not reported in the returns yet the

¶18

GSTR No.3 of 2009 --2--

¶19

taxability of which had not been disputed by the dealer?”

¶20

Question No.1 stands squarely answered in GSTR No.6A of 2000 titled as State of Haryana Versus M/s Swastika Metal Works, Jagadhari, wherein it was held as under:-

¶21

“A perusal of Section 40 of Haryana General Sales Tax Act (for short “the Act”) shows that the Commissioner has the revisional power under this Section. In fact, a perusal of the aforementioned Section shows that the Commissioner can also suo motto call for the record of any case, pending or disposed of, in order to arrive at a just and fair decision”.

¶22

In view of answer to question No.1, question Nos.2 and 3 do

¶23

not survive.

¶24

The reference is accordingly answered against the revenue.

¶25

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE

¶26

March 22, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE

M/S Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishan Lal Vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp. & Anr.

Sher Singh Vs State of Hry and Ors.

Jagir Singh Vs State of Punjab

(O&M)State of Punjab Vs Sohan Singh

Ex. Head Constable Gurmit Sing Vs State of Punjab

State of Punjab Vs Jaswant Singh