Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Balram Cement Ltd....Opponent(S) on 12 February, 2016
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani, G.R.Udhwani
O/TAXAP/970/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO.970 of 2015
=============================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT....Appellant(s)
Versus
BALRAM CEMENT LTD....Opponent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Appellant(s) No.1
MR TUSHAR P HEMANI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No.1
MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No.1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 12/02/2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1. By this appeal under section 78 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the appellant - State of Gujarat has challenged the order dated 15th July, 2015 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Second Appeal No.918/2013 by proposing the following questions stated to be substantial questions of law:-
[1] Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in law and in facts in holding that petroleum coke was not used as a fuel in the process of manufacturing cement as per section 11(3)(b)(iii) of the Act?
[2] Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances has erred in law and in facts in deleting levy of interest and penalty?
Page 1 of 2
HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Sat Feb 13 03:14:52 IST 2016
O/TAXAP/970/2015 ORDER
2. At the outset, Mr. Tushar Hemani, learned advocate for the respondent assessee has drawn the attention of the court to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal to point out that insofar as Second Appeal No.918/2013 is concerned, the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order and that the questions of law as proposed in the appeal do not arise out of the impugned order insofar as the same relate to Second Appeal No.918/2013.
3. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader is not able to dispute the aforesaid position.
4. As can be seen from paragraph 21 of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has noted that Second Appeal No.918/2013 has been filed under the CST Act whereby the first appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-
submission of requisite form or non-payment of the pre-deposit amount. The Tribunal has set aside the order and restored the same to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in terms of the directions issued by the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, as rightly submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent, the questions of law as proposed do not arise out the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed.
( Harsha Devani, J. ) ( G.R. Udhwani, J. ) hki Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Sat Feb 13 03:14:52 IST 2016