Disposed

M/S Vijay Enterprises Faridabad v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2014VATAP/100/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of VATAP No. 100 of 2014 by holding that the issue involved was identical and already concluded by prior writ petitions. The appeal was disposed of in the terms directed in those earlier cases.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of in the terms directed in the M/s Vijay Cotex Ltd. and M/s Jai Hanuman Stone Crushing Mills cases.

M/S Vijay Enterprises Faridabad Vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

VATAP No. 100 of 2014 [ 1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

VATAP No. 100 of 2014 Decided on : 05.09.2014

¶4

M/s Vijay Enterprises

. . . Appellant

Versus

The State of Haryana

. . . Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶11

Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, AAG, Haryana.

¶12

¶13

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

¶14

This order shall dispose of VATAP Nos. 100 and 101 of 2014, as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved herein is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from VATAP No. 100 of 2014.

¶15

This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short “the Act”), against the order dated 23.05.2013, passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the “the Tribunal”), claiming the following substantial questions of law:-

¶16

“i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower authorities were justified in not permitting production of declaration forms C-4 and other supporting documents simply because the assessment order passed was an exparte order?

¶17

ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the settled position of law that declaration forms can be produced even at the appellate stage whether order Annexure A-2 and A-4 are sustainable in law?

¶18

JAWALA RAM 2014.10.10 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

VATAP No. 100 of 2014

¶20

[ 2 ]

¶21

iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there being fluid situation with regard to the allowance of ITC which was settled by Punjab and Haryana High Court, was it not a fit case where the matter should have been sent back for framing the assessment after considering the declaration forms produced and the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court?”

¶22

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that

¶23

Forms VAT C-4 could not be produced before the Assessing Authority. It was urged that the same be allowed to be produced as they are now in possession of the appellant.

¶24

The issue herein is whether the Forms VAT C-4 which could not be produced before the assessing authority as they were not available with the dealer can now be allowed to be produced at this stage.

¶25

Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the issue raised in this appeal is no longer res-integra and stands concluded by the decision of this Court in, “ CWP No.13789 of 2011 , titled as “M/s Vijay Cotex Ltd., Panipat vs. State of Haryana and others ” and “ CWP No.15553 of 2011 , titled as “M/s Jai Hanuman Stone Crushing Mills, Bhiwani vs. The State of Haryana and others ” both decided on 19.12.2013. In view of the consensus between the parties that the issue raised herein stands concluded by the decisions in M/s Vijay Cotex Ltd. and M/s Jai Hanuman Stone Crushing Mills cases (supra) , the present appeal is disposed of in the same terms as directed in the said writ petitions.

¶26

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶27

(FATEH DEEP SINGH) JUDGE

¶28

September 05, 2014 JAWALA RAM J.Ram 2014.10.10 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

M/S Vijay Enterprises Faridabad v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vijay Enterprises Faridabad 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

M/S Noble Chlorochem Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr.

M/S Jitco Overseas Projects Now Jop Power Infra Engg Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Gurcharan Kaur Vs Commissioner of Income Taxk

M/S Vanick Oils & Fats P Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs & Anr.

Babu Lal and Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Barjinder Kumar Aggarwal Vs State Bank of India & Others