LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee -petitioner has approached this court through the present writ petition under articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India challenging assessment order dated March 31, 2011, annexure P3, for the assessment year 2007 -08. Brief facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner -company is engaged in execution of works contracts for construction of buildings, roads, dams, water projects factories and railway electrification jobs in various States including the State of Haryana. It is registered under the provisions of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, "the HVAT Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the CST Act"). During the assessment year 2007 -08, the petitioner effected transit sale in favour of M/s. Power Grid Corporation in respect of a turnover of Rs. 30,05,62,103 and claimed exemption on such sale in terms of section 6(2) of the CST Act. The Assessing Authority vide impugned order dated March 31, 2011, annexure P3, rejected the returns filed by the petitioner and disallowed exemption under section 6(2) of the CST Act. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an application dated June 16, 2011, annexure P4, under section 19 of the HVAT Act for rectification of the assessment order on the ground of errors apparent on record. The said application was also dismissed by the assessing authority on June 20, 2011. Hence this petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the assessment was in violation of judgments of the apex court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Bombay v. S.R. Sarkar : [1960] 11 STC 655 (SC), G.A. Galiakotwala & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Madras : [1976] 37 STC 536 (SC) and State of Tamil Nadu v. Dharangadhara Trading Co. Ltd. : [1988] 70 STC 92 (SC). It was, thus, submitted that in such circumstances, the assessing authority had exceeded its jurisdiction in framing the assessment for the assessment year in question.

(3.) AFTER giving thoughtful consideration to respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we sustain the preliminary objection raised by the learned State counsel.