Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors vs M/S Shree Krishna Steelage (P) Ltd on 27 March, 2023
Bench: Sabina, Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision Petition No. 218 of 2022 Decided on 27.3.2023 .
State of Himachal Pradesh and ors. ....Petitioners.
Versus M/s Shree Krishna Steelage (P) Ltd. .... Respondent. ................................................................................................ Coram The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sabina, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.
For the respondent : None.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge(Oral)
Heard.
2. By way of instant revision petition under Section 48 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 ( for short 'HP VAT Act'), petitioners seek to assail order dated 20.6.2017, passed in Appeal No. 01/2017 and order dated 29.7.2022 passed in Rectification Application No. 07/2018 by Himachal Pradesh Tax Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal').
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2023 20:32:57 :::CIS 23. Respondent was assessed by the revenue to pay an additional sum of Rs. 1,06,69,699/- for the period 1.4.2012 to 31.8.2014 by holding that that stainless steel scrap was a ferrous metal .
and alloy and was liable to be taxed at the rate of 2% under the Himachal Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Area Act,2010 ( for shot 'Entry Tax Act').
4. Aggrieved against the order of Assessing Authority, respondent herein preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Himachal Pradesh, but remained unsuccessful.
Thereafter, respondent preferred further appeal before the Tax Tribunal under Section 45 (2) of the VAT Act, 2005. The Tax Tribunal accepted the appeal of the respondent, vide order dated 20.6.2017 and held the stainless steel scrap to be a non ferrous alloy and hence taxable at the rate of 0.25% under Entry No. 9 of Schedule-II appended to the Entry Tax Act. The demand raised against the respondent by revenue, as also upheld by the Appellate Authority was quashed and set aside.
5. Petitioners preferred rectification application before the Tax Tribunal under Section 47(1) of the VAT Act, 2005 against the order dated 20.6.2017 passed by said Tribunal. The Tax Tribunal dismissed the rectification application of the petitioner by holding that ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2023 20:32:57 :::CIS 3 there was no mistake or error apparent in the order sought to be rectified.
6. Petitioners have now sought to invoke revisional .
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 48(1) of the VAT Act, 2005 by assailing the order dated 29.7.2022, passed by the Tax Tribunal in rectification application of the petitioners, as also the principal order dated 20.6.2017 passed by the same Tribunal in exercise of powers under Section 45 (2) of the VAT Act.
7. Section 48 (1) of the VAT Act reads as under:-
"48. Revision to High Court (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 45 or under sub-section (3) of section 46, may, within 90 days of the communication of such order, apply to the High court of Himachal Pradesh for revision of such order if it involves any question of law arising out of erroneous decision of law or failure to decide a question of law.''
8. The clear mandate of law, thus, is that this Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act only against the orders passed by Tax Tribunal either under Section 45(2) or Section 46(3) of the VAT Act. Such jurisdiction can be exercised if the person aggrieved applies to this Court within 90 days of the communication of the order and also if the involvement of any question of law arising out of erroneous decision of law or failure to decide a question of law is found to exist.
9. The impugned order passed by the Tax Tribunal in rectification application filed by the petitioners under Section 47 of ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2023 20:32:57 :::CIS 4 the VAT Act is not open to challenge by the petitioners before this Court under Section 48 of the VAT Act. Petitioners can also not be allowed to assail the order dated 20.6.2017, passed by the Tax .
Tribunal being clearly beyond the period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 48 of the Act
10. Even otherwise, no case for interference with the impugned order has been made out by the petitioners. There is no denial to the fact that no distinction has been made in the Entry Tax Act between ferrous metal and alloys and non ferrous metal and alloys. The Tax Tribunal has rightly interpreted the terms of the Entry Tax Act as decipherable from its provision and entries in the Schedule appended thereto. The alloys have been included in Entry 19(b) of Schedule-II to the Entry Tax Act, which has been declared to be taxed at the rate of 0.25%. The Tax Tribunal had rightly interpreted the terms of Schedule-II appended to Entry Tax Act by holding that the tax statutes have to be read as it is without inferring anything extra.
11. We do not find erroneous decision of law or failure to decide a question of law in the impugned order dated 20.6.2017 passed by the Tax Tribunal, therefore, no question of law has arisen for consideration of this Court. In result, petition fails and the same is dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2023 20:32:57 :::CIS 5Pending application(s) if any, shall also stands disposed of.
.
( Sabina ) Acting Chief Justice ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 27th March, 2023 (Guleria) r to ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2023 20:32:57 :::CIS