H.M. MEHRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of VAT Appeal Nos. 102 and 103 of 2013 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved therein is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No. 102 of 2013. VAT Appeal No. 102 of 2013 has been preferred by the assessee under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated July 8, 2013, annexure A5, passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Haryana, Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") in STA No. 174 of 2011-12, claiming following substantial questions of law:

(2.) Briefly, the facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as available on the record of ITA No. 102 of 2013 are that the assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 in the name and style of M/s. H.M. Mehra and Co. It is engaged in job-work of textile and embroidery. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Sonepat vide order dated September 17, 2008, Annexure A. 1 framed the assessment holding that no transfer of property was involved in execution of job-work and hence no tax was leviable on job-work done by the assessee. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (ST)-cum-revisional authority (DETC) in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as Commissioner vide order dated August 30, 2011, annexure A3, held that since the assessee consumed material in execution of job-work of inter-State dealer, it is liable to pay tax under the Act on deemed sales and direction was issued to the assessing authority to issue challan of tax for Rs. 43,04,702 to the asses-see. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. During the hearing, a preliminary objection was raised by the assessee that the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner had no power of revision as the same laid with the Commissioner who could not delegate this power to any officer in terms of section 51 of the Act. The Tribunal vide order dated July 8, 2013, annexure A5, rejected the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction holding that the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the order under section 34(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee is before this court through the present appeals.

(3.) The primary issue that arises for consideration is that whether the revisional power was properly conferred on the DETC or not. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Act came into operation on April 1, 2003 whereas notification annexure A6 was issued by the State Government on March 31, 2003 whereby under sub-section (2) of section 34 of the Act, power had been conferred on various authorities to exercise revisional jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, once the Act came into operation with effect from April 1, 2003, no valid notification could have been issued on March 31, 2003. Relying upon sub-sections (6) and (9) of section 36 of the Act, it was argued that though this point was not raised before the Tribunal but the same arises in the appeal and therefore the same can be urged before this court.