Allowed

State of Haryana Thro Excise & Tax. Officer Cum Assessing Authority v. M/S Suraj Plastic Industries and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Sept 2013VATAP/88/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned a 341-day delay in filing a curative application. In the VAT appeal, the court set aside the Haryana Tax Tribunal's order relieving the assessee of tax liability on HDPE Fabric, allowing the appeal but granting liberty to the assessee to challenge the original order.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 341 days condoned; VAT Appeal allowed; Impugned order of Haryana Tax Tribunal set aside with liberty to appeal original order.

State of Haryana Thro Excise & Tax. Officer… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

VAT Appeal No.88 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.M.Nos.13915-16-CII of 2013 and VAT Appeal No.88 of 2013 Date of Order: 26.09.2013

State of Haryana

...Appellant

Versus

M/s Suraj Plastic Industries and another

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON

¶11

Present: Mr. Gagandeep Wasu, Addl. A.G.,Haryana for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for respondent no.1.

¶13

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) C.M.No.13915-CII of 2013

¶14

Allowed as prayed for.

¶15

C.M.No.13916-CII of 2013

¶16

Prayer in this application is to condone delay of 341 days in filing the appeal.

¶17

Counsel for the respondent states that he has no objection, if the application is allowed.

¶18

In view of averments in the application and the statement made by counsel for the respondent, the application is allowed and delay of 341 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶19

VAT Appeal No.88 of 2013

¶20

The revenue challenges order dated 29.03.2012 (Annexure A-

¶21

4), passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh, accepting a review application filed by the assessee, affirming its opinion with respect to

¶22

Kumar Naresh N 2013.10.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶23

-2-

¶24

VAT Appeal No.88 of 2013

¶25

exigibility of “HDPE Fabric” to tax @ 4% but holding that as the assessee did not collect tax from its consumers in view of the earlier entry in the Haryana General Sales Tax Act and certain other decisions, the assessee is not liable to pay tax, prior to clarification dated 10.12.2009, issued by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Excise and Taxation Department.

¶26

We have heard arguments in detail and are of the prima-facie opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable, in law.

¶27

Faced with this situation, counsel for the assessee states, on instructions, that he has no objection, if the appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 29.03.2012, passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh, is set aside but with liberty to the assessee to file an appeal, challenging original order, dated 21.02.2012.

¶28

Counsel for the State of Haryana states that he has no objection to the statement made by counsel for the assessee.

¶29

In view of the statements made by counsel for the parties, the appeal is allowed, order dated 29.03.2012, passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh, is set aside, with liberty to the assessee to file an appeal challenging order dated 21.02.2012.

¶30

The appellant is restrained for a period of one week from

¶31

affecting recovery.

¶32

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶33

September 26, 2013 nt

¶34

(DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON) JUDGE

¶35

Kumar Naresh N 2013.10.01 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

State of Haryana Thro Excise & Tax. Officer Cum Assessing Authority v. M/S Suraj Plastic Industries and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana Thro Excise & Tax. Officer Cum Assessing Authority v. M/S Suraj Plastic Industries and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Longowalia Poultry Farm Vs Depty Commissioner of Income T

M/S Balaji Cotton Ginner Ellenabad Sirsa Vs State of Haryana etc.

M/S Satya Narayan Ram Chander Dabwali Vs State of Haryana etc.

State of Haryana Thro Ex. & Tax Officer Panipat Vs M/S Shree Tirupati Industries, Panipat

State of Hry Thro Ex. & Tax. Officer Panipat Vs M/S Shree Tirupati Industries Panipat

State of Haryana Thro Excise & Tax. Officer, Panipat Vs M/S Sarwati Polymers (P) Ltd. Panipat and Ors.