M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Vs. TEE EXCISE & TAXATION OFFICER, AMBALA CATT, AMBALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAS the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana erred in rejecting the Petitioner's prayer that the appeal under Section 39 be entertained without deposit of the tax etc as assessed by the competent authority? This is the short question that arises for consideration in these three writ petitions.

(2.) THE Petitioner deals in petroleum products. It furnished its returns in respect of the years 1994 -95, 1995 -96 and 1996 -97. After the Excise and Taxation Officer had decided the matter, the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner re -opened it under the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. After looking into the matter, he passed orders raising an additional demand in respect of each of the three years. These were as under:

(3.) THE Tribunal considered the matter and rejected the request vide its order dated May 2, 2001. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P.3 in these three petitions. It was found that the Petitioner is not "unable to pay" the amount of tax etc. as levied by the competent authority. Aggrieved by the three orders passed in respect of three separate years as noticed above, the Petitioner has approached this Court through these three writ petitions. It prays that the Tribunal's order be quashed.