Single judge bench dismissed the tax appeal against a tribunal order remanding the case to the assessing authority, relying on a earlier Division Bench decision dismissing a similar appeal.
The appeal was dismissed with no fresh relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
VATAP No. 9 of 2010
Date of Decision: May 10, 2010
M/s Essma Woolen Mills, Amritsar
..Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate, for the appellant.
M.M. KUMAR, J.
This appeal filed under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) challenges order dated 9.11.2009, passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in VAT Appeal No. 323 of 2009, remanding back the case of the assessee to the Assessing Authority. It is pertinent to notice that the Tribunal has also passed a similar order dated 9.11.2009 in VAT Appeal No. 319 of 2008-09 filed by the assessee-appellant. Against the aforementioned order the assessee-appellant preferred VATAP No. 8 of 2010 before this Court. The Division Bench dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 21.4.2010 by observing as under:-
“ A perusal of the impugned order shows that directions have been issued to the assessing authority where returns in Form VAT 20 had been submitted for the year 2006-07, to decide, whether the sale of blankets made by the appellant during the year 2006-07, had
VATAP No. 9 of 2010
2
been sale of the blankets made out of shoddy yarn and were exempted or whether the same were taxable. In view of the aforementioned order, it is clear that the assessing authority will go into the entire issue afresh. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal has not decided the matter on merits at all.
In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is dismissed.”
Having heard learned counsel for the assessee-appellant we find that the issue raised in the instant appeal is similar to the one raised in VATAP No. 8 of 2010, which has already been dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 21.4.2010. Accordingly, following the same reasoning and for the purpose of consistency, the instant appeal is also dismissed in terms of the order dated 21.4.2010 passed in VATAP No. 8 of 2010.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 10, 2010 JUDGE
Pkapoor
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the instant appeal should be dismissed based on identical reasoning to VATAP No. 8 of 2010.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Essma Woolen Mills, Amritsar
State of Punjab
M.M. Kumar
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
