Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Air Trax Polymers (P) Ltd vs State Of Haryana on 10 September, 2014
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Fateh Deep Singh
VATREF No. 13 of 2010 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
VATREF No. 13 of 2010 (O&M)
Decided on : 10.09.2014
M/s Air Trax Polymers (P) Ltd., Kharkhoda, Sonepat
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
. . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, AAG, Haryana.
****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of VATREF Nos. 13 to 19 & 57 of 2010 and 1, 10 & 11 of 2011, as according to learned State counsel the questions of law referred therein, are identical. The questions of law referred to this Court by the Haryana Tax Tribunal vide orders dated 02.08.2010 read as under:-
"(i) What is the amount of 'deferred tax' within the meaning of section 61(2) (d) (iii) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003; and how will the amount of one-half of the amount of deferred tax payable upfront along with the filing of the tax returns be computed under section 61(2) (d) (iii) of the Act?
(ii) How the tax benefit in case of payment of one-half of the amount of deferred tax upfront along with tax returns will be counted towards exhausting the capping limit on the amount of deferment of payment of tax?
JAWALA RAM
(iii) Whether the clarification issued under section 56(3) of the Act 2014.09.12 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh VATREF No. 13 of 2010 (O&M) [2] by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana in Haldi Ram's case dated 12.7.2004 dealt with the aforesaid questions and if it did, then was the Tribunal right in deciding the above questions raised in appeals?
(iv) Is interest payable under the provisions of section 14(6) of the Act on short payment of one-half of the amount of deferred tax calculated in accordance with the Act and the Rules made thereunder?"
2. The questions of law referred to in the present petitions are similar to that raised in the case of M/s Sonex Auto Industries (P) Ltd., Bhadurgarh, vs. State of Haryana in VATAP No.48 of 2012, decided on 25.07.2014, by this Court. This fact has not been disputed by learned State counsel.
3. In view thereof, all the above mentioned references are disposed of in the same terms as in VATAP No. 48 of 2012.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
(FATEH DEEP SINGH)
September 10, 2014 JUDGE
J.Ram
JAWALA RAM
2014.09.12 12:57
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh