SANTOSH PARGAL & CO. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of VAT Appeal Nos. 76 and 77 of 2014 as learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue involved in both the appeals is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from VAT Appeal No. 76 of 2014. VAT Appeal No. 76 of 2014 has been preferred by the assessee -appellant under Sec. 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, "the HVAT Act") against the order dated February 28, 2013, annexure A4 passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal at Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") in STA No. 892 of 2010 -11 dated February 28, 2013, claiming following substantial questions of law:

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in VAT Appeal No. 76 of 2014 may be noticed. The appellant is a partnership firm. It is carrying out business of tannery at Murthal, District Sonepat., i.e., processing of wet blue leather sheep/goat skin to finished leather used for leather garments, goods and shoes for export. It is mainly doing job -work in which wet blue leather is supplied by the exporter for processing into finished leather. It uses chemicals, fat liquors, dyes, syntans, sodium bicarbonate, etc., for cleaning, washing and drying the leather. It is registered under the HVAT Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the CST Act"). The Assessing Authority while framing assessment for the assessment year 2006 -07 levied tax and charged interest on the material consumed in the job -work and additional demand of Rs. 1,72,332 was created under the HVAT Act and Rs. 7,81,665 under the CST Act. Aggrieved by the order, the appeals were filed before the first appellate authority by the assessees in both the cases. Vide order dated January 4, 2011, annexure A2, the appeals were dismissed. The assessees went in appeals before the Tribunal. Vide order dated February 28, 2013, annexure A4, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals in terms of its earlier decision dated September 10, 2012 in STA No. 180 of 2005 -06 (Northern India Textile Processors Association, Faridabad v/s. State of Haryana). In that case, challenge was made to clarification dated January 14, 2005 issued by the Government of Haryana. In the said case, gray cloth was washed, bleached, dyed and printed on job -work basis. Since additional excise duty was payable on textile and cloth remained cloth earlier and after the job -work, no tax could be charged because of levy of additional excise duty. The Government rejected the claim of the dealers. The Tribunal upheld the clarification and taxability of the material consumed in the job -work inspite of the fact that additional excise duty was leviable on textile. In the present case, according to the appellant, it is processing leather and not textile. No additional excise duty was thus leviable. The issue involved herein was not the same as in Northern India Textile Processors Association's case (STA No. 180 of 2005 -06 decision on September 10, 2012). Hence the instant appeals by the assessee -appellants.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.