Disposed

M/S Om Jee Snacks Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jul 2018CWP/987/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged validity of Section 2(1)(zg) of Haryana VAT Act, 2003 and a 2013 Government clarification on sale price. Court held since remedy of appeal exists, petitioner is directed to file appeal within 30 days without delay bar. Court did not examine the validity of the challenged provision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner directed to file appeal within 30 days without dismissal for delay.

M/S Om Jee Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CWP No.987 of 2015 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.987 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision.13.07.2018

¶5

M/s Om Jee Snacks Pvt. Ltd.

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

State of Haryana and another ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Amar Pratap Singh, Advocate & Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG, Haryana.

¶12

-.-

¶13

RAJESH BINDAL J.

¶14

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of definition of “sale price” as contained in Section 2(1)(zg) of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003. Further challenge has been made to the clarification issued by the Government of Haryana, Excise and Taxation Department dated 22.08.2013, which provides that element of service tax will be considered for the purpose of sale price and tax shall be levied on that.

¶15

The writ petition was entertained noticing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner at that time that the Tribunal, where the appeal against clarification is maintainable, was not functional. However, the fact remains that now the Tribunal is functional but the vacancy created on retirement of third Member has not been filled up.

¶16

Appeal against any clarification issued by the

¶17

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.07.18 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

-2-

¶19

CWP No.987 of 2015 (O&M)

¶20

Government in exercise of powers under Section 56(3) of the Haryana VAT Act is to be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than three Members.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State after consulting learned Advocate General submitted that vacancy created on retirement of third Member shall be filled up within two months.

¶22

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has remedy of appeal against the clarification issued by the Government, hence, we relegate the petitioner to avail its remedy of appeal before the Tribunal. As the writ petition remained pending in this Court, we direct that if the appeal is filed within 30 days, the same shall not be dismissed on account of delay and shall be considered on its merits.

¶23

It is made clear that we have not examined the validity of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Haryana VAT Act. The petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the same later, if necessary.

¶24

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE

¶26

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶27

July 13, 2018 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶28

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.07.18 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S Om Jee Snacks Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Om Jee Snacks Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Saraswati Rice and General Mills, Vill Rawa Vs State of Haryana

M/S Saraswati Rice and General Mills, Vill Rawa Vs State of Haryana

M/S Saraswati Rice and General Mills, Vill Rawa Vs State of Haryana

M/S Balaji Gram Udyog Mandal Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

M/S Devyani International Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

The Medical Superintendent-Cum-Chairman and Others Vs Tarlochan Singh and Other