Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravindra Tubes Ltd. And Jindal ... vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 9 January, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2007)9VST92(P&H)
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla
ORDER
1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 13234 and 13416 of 2006, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. Prayer in this writ petition is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order, dated March 6, 2006 (annexure P. 9), passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal.
3. The petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of MS and galvanised tubes at Hisar. The petitioner-company filed its returns under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 for the year 1994-95 with the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Assessing Authority, Hisar. The Assessing Authority accepted the returns and, vide order, dated August 30, 1995, allowed a refund of Rs. 95, 853 (Rs. 1,218 in C.W.P. No. 13416 of 2006) after concluding that no purchase tax was payable by the petitioner on goods, purchased from within the State of Haryana. It also held that the petitioner was entitled to a full rebate under Rule 24A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975, as goods purchased from within the State of Haryana, after payment of tax, had been utilised for the manufacture of finished goods, which were sold on inter-State basis or had been sold locally.
4. Vide notice, dated September 13,1999, (September 10,1999 in C.W.P. No. 13416 of 2006), the Excise and Taxation Commissioner reopened the case. After considering the matter on merits, the revisional authority set aside the assessment order. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Haryana Tax Tribunal. The appeal was accepted and it was held that the assessing authority was fully justified in passing the order.
5. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Assessing Authority, Hisar, thereafter, filed an application for review. Notice of this application was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner raised certain preliminary objections and pleaded that the application for review could not be entertained. However, vide the impugned order, the petitioner's contentions were rejected and the review application entertained.
6. One of the grounds of challenge in present writ petitions is that the impugned order could not have been passed by a Bench consisting of Shri D.R. Yadav and Mrs. Amarjeet Sachdeva, Members, Haryana Tax Tribunal. Mrs. Amarjeet Sachdeva was the revisional authority and had dealt with the petitioner's file and passed interim orders, at the revisional stage.
7. Learned Additional Advocate-General, Haryana concedes that the impugned order could not have been passed by a Bench consisting of a revisional authority.
8. As one of the Members of the Tribunal had exercised jurisdiction as a revisional authority as regards these cases, and as rightly conceded by the learned Additional Advocate-General, Haryana, propriety demands that Mrs. Amarjeet Sachdeva should have recused herself from the Bench. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order, dated March 6, 2006 (annexure P. 9), with a direction to the Haryana Tax Tribunal to hear the matter afresh, taking into consideration the preliminary objections, raised by the petitioner as well.
9. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.