VEERUMAL MONGA AND SONS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated May 15, 2000, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana (for short, "the Tribunal") under Section 41 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the State Act") vide which the Tribunal reviewed its order dated August 16, 1999 and restored the order of assessment passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Sirsa (hereafter described as "the Assessing Authority").

(2.) The facts which have bearing on the decision of this petition are that after hearing the representative of the petitioner, the Assessing Authority passed order dated August 3, 1998 (annexure P1) in respect of the assessment year 1996-97 holding the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax on the paddy purchased from within the State of Haryana, notwithstanding the fact that the rice manufactured out of it had been indirectly exported out of India. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak, but the second appeal filed by it was allowed by the Tribunal vide order, annexure P4, dated August 16, 1999. The department sought review of that order by filing an application under Section 41 of the State Act which has been granted by the impugned order.

(3.) Shri K.L. Goyal argued that the impugned order should be declared void and quashed because the Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 41 of the State Act. Learned counsel argued that while deciding an application filed by the State under Section 41 of the State Act, the Tribunal could not have acted as a court of appeal. He read out the two orders passed by the Tribunal to show that the review petition has been entertained by the succeeding member of the Tribunal without even recording a finding that the order dated August 16, 1999 suffers from any legal infirmity. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions :