MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, "the Act") is against the order dated December 21, 2009 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Haryana, Chandigarh (for short, "the Tribunal"). We find that the following substantial questions of law arises for consideration:

(2.) Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A), Ambala, which was dismissed vide order dated June 3, 2009 (A2). It was held that the Nigam was controlled by the Government but still it did not make them Government Department to issue form C3. During the proceedings, the appellant submitted one D1 declaration form, which was issued by the Executive Engineer, DHBVNL for purchase of jeep. The said declaration form D1 was not produced earlier and it was held that it was not admissible in evidence.

(3.) The short question which arises for consideration of this court is that if a Nigam was not the Government Department and could not issue form C3, then whether the appellant can be permitted to produce the declaration form D1 and claim concessional rate of tax before the Assessing Authority. This question came up for consideration before this court in VATAP No. 2 of 2012 titled as Agrimas Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 2013 64 VST 134 decided on February 12, 2013 of which one of us Ms. Ritu Bahri, J. was a member and this court held as under (pages 135 and 136 in 64 VST):