STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAVINDRA TUBES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this order, we shall decide VAT Appeal Nos.86 and 87 of 2013, as the impugned orders in both appeals are similar. The State of Haryana is before us challenging order dated 17.11.2011, passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, dismissing an application for review.

(2.) COUNSEL for the State of Haryana submits that even though orders passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner -cumRevisional Authority, Hisar, were set aside and assessment orders passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner -cum -Assessment Authority, were restored by the Tribunal, the Act does not prohibit the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner -cum -Assessment Authority, who represents the State, from filing a petition for review of the order passed by the Tribunal. The majority opinion recorded by the Tribunal that as the order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner had been restored he had no right to file an application for review, is incorrect as the Tribunal has not considered the words and expressions used in Section 41(1) of the Act. Counsel for the State of Haryana further submits that the minority opinion, affirming the right of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, to file an application for review, is the correct opinion in law and may, therefore, be affirmed. Counsel for the respondents submits that the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Hisar, concluded assessment on 30.08.1995. The revisional authority set aside the assessment order and remitted the matter to the assessing authority for re -assessment. The respondents challenged the order passed by the revisional authority before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, set aside the order passed by the revisional authority and restored the order passed by the assessing authority, i.e. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Hisar. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner filed an application for review. The Tribunal has rightly held that in this situation, as the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner is not a person aggrieved, he could not maintain an application for review.

(3.) THE short question that arises for consideration is whether the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner could maintain an application for review, under Section 41(1) of the Act, against the order passed by the Tribunal, restoring his order. Admittedly, the order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, was restored by the Tribunal. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, filed an application for review of this order. The Tribunal has dismissed the application by holding that as order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner has been restored, he is not a person aggrieved and, therefore, cannot maintain an application for review.