LAUL'S INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 10538 -CII of 2013

(2.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioner under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review of the order dated 25.2.2010 passed in GSTR No. 7 of 2001 whereby this Court had declined to answer the reference and returned the same unanswered. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the present review application as narrated therein may be noticed. The petitioner made supplies of railway track material to Indian Railways under one work order. The said supplies were spread over in a number of years. As per supply order, the contract rate would be subject to price variation based on RBI Index Number of whole sale prices pertaining to Ferro Alloys, Fuel, Power, Light and Lubricants as per formula specified therein. The assessing authority while framing assessment for the year 1993 -94 found that the dealer had not disclosed sales worth Rs. 16,29,678/ - in the returns filed. These sales were on account of escalation charges but were received during the assessment year 1994 -95 and were assessed to tax on 15.10.1997. Accordingly, the assessing authority issued a notice to the dealer and vide order dated 16.1.1998 imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,30,500/ - under Section 48 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (in short "the Act"). Feeling aggrieved, the dealer filed an appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) [for brevity "the JETC(A)"] who vide order dated 30.6.1998 set aside the order of the assessing authority and remanded the case for a fresh decision with a direction that escalation charges had to be added to the turnover of the assessment year to which such supplies were related. However, the JETC(A) reviewed its order dated 30.6.1998 and relying upon the judgment of Orissa High Court in M/s. Bisra Stone Lime Company Limited v. STO, Rourkela, : 44 STC 418, vide order dated 18.1.1999 held that the escalation charges were to be added during the assessment year in which such charges were received by the dealer and also upheld the penalty. The petitioner challenged the order dated 18.1.1999 before the Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal vide order dated 25.4.2000 dismissal the appeal and upheld the orders of the authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before the Tribunal under Section 42(1) of the Act. The Tribunal referred the following question of law for opinion of this Court: -

(3.) THE reference sent by the Tribunal was numbered as GSTR No. 7 of 2001. As no one had put in appearance before this Court, this Court vide order dated 25.2.2010 declined to answer the reference and accordingly returned the same unanswered. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application bearing CM No. 2371 -CII of 2013 for recalling of the above mentioned reference by recalling the order dated 25.2.2010 passed by this Court. On 15.2.2013, counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw CM No. 2371 -CII of 2013 as he wanted to file proper review petition. Accordingly, the said application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.2.2013. Hence, the present review application. Since, the review application was barred by time, an application bearing CM No. 10539 -CII of 2013 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short, the "1963 Act") has been filed for condonation of 1127 days' delay in filing the review application.