Punjab-Haryana High Court
Excise And Taxation Commissioner vs Ms Mahabir Techno Ltd Kurukshetra And ... on 14 October, 2025
Bench: Lisa Gill, Meenakshi I. Mehta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(107)
1. VATAP-369-2019(O&M) Date of Decision: 14.10.2025
Excise and Taxation Commissioner --Appellant
Versus
M/s Mahabir Techno Ltd. & another --Respondents
2. VATAP-129-2019(O&M)
Excise and Taxation Commissioner --Appellant
Versus
M/s Prakash Webtech Pvt. Ltd. & another --Respondents
3. VATAP-180-2019(O&M)
Excise and Taxation Commissioner --Appellant
Versus
M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. --Respondents
4. VATAP-181-2019(O&M)
Excise and Taxation Commissioner --Appellant
Versus
M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (I) Ltd. & another --Respondents
5. VATAP-211-2018(O&M)
Excise and Taxation Commissioner --Appellant
Versus
M/s R.K. Industries & another --Respondents
6. VATAP-214-2018(O&M)
Excise and Taxation Commissioner --Appellant
Versus
M/s R.K. Industries & another --Respondents
7. VATAP-213-2018(O&M)
Excise and Taxation Commissioner --Appellant
Versus
M/s R.K. Industries & another --Respondents
For Subsequent orders see VATAP-131-2019 Decided by HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL;
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:52:33 :::
VATAP-369-2019 & connected appeals -2-
8. VATAP-239-2019(O&M)
Excise and Taxation Commissioner --Appellant
Versus
M/s Ravindra Spinners Ltd. & another --Respondents
9. VATAP-247-2018(O&M)
Excise and Taxation Commissioner --Appellant
Versus
M/s Kesari Roller Flour Mill & another --Respondents
10. VATAP-247-2019(O&M)
Excise and Taxation Commissioner --Appellant
Versus
M/s Arjun Garg Govt. Contractor & another --Respondents
11. VATAP-253-2018(O&M)
Excise and Taxation Commissioner --Appellant
Versus
M/s SKH Metals Ltd. & another --Respondents
12. VATAP-283-2018(O&M)
Excise and Taxation Commissioner --Appellant
Versus
M/s District Food & Supplies Controller & another --Respondents
13. VATAP-286-2019(O&M)
Excise and Taxation Commissioner --Appellant
Versus
M/s Echo Builder & another --Respondents
14. VATAP-305-2019(O&M)
Excise and Taxation Commissioner --Appellant
Versus
M/s Echo Builder & another --Respondents
15. VATAP-366-2019(O&M)
Excise and Taxation Commissioner --Appellant
Versus
M/s Deep Auto Agency & another --Respondents
For Subsequent orders see VATAP-131-2019 Decided by HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL;
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:52:33 :::
VATAP-369-2019 & connected appeals -3-
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA.
Present:- Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Advocate for respondents
in VATAP Nos.181, 129 of 2019 and 253 of 2018.
Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate for respondents in
VATAP-247-2019.
Mr. Shivam Malik, Advocate for respondents in
VATAP-239-2019.
***
LISA GILL.J (Oral)
1. At request and with consent of learned counsel for parties, all the aforementioned appeals filed by Revenue/Department are taken up together for consideration and adjudication as learned counsel for parties are ad idem that the sole question of law, which arises in these appeals is "Whether interest on tax demand is leviable only from the date of original revisional order or for any period prior thereto?"
2. Admittedly, in all all these matters question involves is of interest on the additional demand which was created by the revisional authority. It is the case of assessees that interest on such demand cannot be leviable from any period prior to passing of the revisional orders. It has been held by learned Tribunal that question of interest on the additional tax demand would be relatable to the original revisional order.
3. Learned counsel for parties are ad idem that in view of the present factual scenario and the question involved, there is no requirement of narration of details of each and every appeal as such. Details of the For Subsequent orders see VATAP-131-2019 Decided by HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL;
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:52:33 :::
VATAP-369-2019 & connected appeals -4-
assessment orders/revisional orders and orders passed by learned Tribunal in each of the appeals are however reproduced as under:-
Sr. VATAP No. Order of Assessing Order of Order of Order of No. Authoirty Revisional Tribunal review Authority
1. VATAP-369- 15.02.2011 17.12.2013 13.02.2019 06.09.2019 2019
2. VATAP-305- 12.04.2012 08.04.2015 20.12.2017 2019
3. VATAP-366- 24.05.2011 20.08.2014 21.08.2017 2019
4. VATAP-286- 12.04.2012 08.04.2015 20.12.2017 2019
5. VATAP-283- 08.02.2012 24.12.2013 01.09.2017 2018
6. VATAP-253- 09.01.2012 30.12.2014 31.10.2017 2018
7. VATAP-247- 31.03.2015 03.02.2016 27.02.2019 2019
8. VATAP-247- 15.12.2009 03.11.2012 29.08.2017 2018
9. VATAP-239- 15.11.2013 19.08.2015 14.02.2019 2019
10. VATAP-213- 18.11.2014 12.08.2015 23.01.2018 2018
11. VATAP-214- 18.03.2014 12.08.2015 23.01.2018 2018
12. VATAP-211- 18.11.2013 12.08.2015 23.01.2018 2018
13. VATAP-181- 31.03.2014 18.08.2015 23.05.2018 2019
14. VATAP-180- 09.4.2012 08.10.2015 14.12.2017 2019
15. VATAP-129- 26.03.2010 14.12.2010 22.12.2017 2019
4. Learned counsel for appellant-department submits that learned Tribunal has incorrectly held that interest on tax demand is leviable only from the date of revisional order and not for the period prior thereto. An incorrect observation has been made by learned Tribunal that above said is the settled principle as consistently held by this Court as well. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argues that this is factually incorrect inasmuch as this High Court in its decision dated 27.04.2023 in For Subsequent orders see VATAP-131-2019 Decided by HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL;
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:52:33 :::
VATAP-369-2019 & connected appeals -5-
VATAP-129-2017 titled 'Excise and Taxation Commissioner,
Panchkula Vs. M/s Balaji Motors, Hisar and another' has held as under:-
"12. The judgment referred to by learned counsel for the respondents in United Riceland Limited and another vs. State of Haryana and others (1997) 104 STC 362 (Pun), and Chaudhary Tractor Company, Tohana, District Sirsa vs. State of Haryana (2007) 30 PHT 659 (P&H) would not be applicable as these cases deal with the provision of demand of interest under Section 25(3) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. Even the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghasi Lal's case (supra) cannot be applied in the present case as the present case deals with the provisions of Haryana VAT Act, 2003. The relevant provision of 14(6) is as under:-
"If any dealer fails to make payment of tax in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, he shall be liable to pay in addition to the tax payable by him, simple interest at one per cent per month if the payment is made within ninety days from the last date specified for the payment of tax, but if the default continues thereafter, he shall be liable to pay interest at two per cent per month for the whole of the period from the last date specified for the payment of tax to the date he makes the payment: PROVIDED that the interest leviable under this Act shall not exceed the amount of tax or penalty on the non-payment or late payment of tax on which such interest is charged."
13. The above said provision makes it abundantly clear that simple interest at one per cent per month is to be charged if the payment is made within ninety days from the last date specified for the payment of tax and two per cent per month for the whole of the period he makes the payment beyond ninety days. If the tax is not paid as per the Act, the assessee is liable to pay tax alongwith the interest as per provisions of Section 14(6) of the HVAT Act.
14. The judgment referred to by learned counsel for the For Subsequent orders see VATAP-131-2019 Decided by HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL;
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:52:33 :::
VATAP-369-2019 & connected appeals -6-
appellant in M/s. Faridabad Fabricators (P) Ltd., Faridabad vs. State of Haryana, is directly applicable to the facts of the present case. The assessee was required to pay the tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the HVAT Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Non-payment of tax according to the provision of the Act will certainly amount to failure to make payment of tax which renders the assessee liable to pay interest also as provided in Section 14(6). The liability to pay interest would be from the date the tax was supposed to be deposited by the assessee.
15. Keeping in view the above, the instant appeal is allowed and the order dated 03.02.2017 passed by Haryana Tax Tribunal (respondent No. 2) is modified that the interest on the additional demand is leviable from the date of filing of the return. A direction is given to the Assessing Authority to recalculate the interest on the additional demand."
5. It is informed that this decision dated 27.04.2023 in VATAP- 129-2017 has attained finality.
6. At this stage, we take note of the fact as brought to our notice by learned counsel for appellants that assessee(s) have since long deposited the additional demand as raised and it is only the question of interest which remains. It is apparent that rationale for provisions under Section 14(6) of HVAT Act is that said additional tax as determined at the time of revision has always been due right from the date on which liability arose. Matter is squarely covered in favour of appellant in terms of Division Bench decision in M/s Balaji Motor's case (supra), which is stated to have attained finality. Nothing to the contrary has emerged.
7. Learned counsel for respondents present before us are unable to deny the position as above.
For Subsequent orders see VATAP-131-2019 Decided by HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL;
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:52:33 :::
VATAP-369-2019 & connected appeals -7-
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, as above, the question of law as framed, is decided in favour of appellant-revenue and against the respondents. Accordingly, impugned order(s) passed by learned Tribunal to the extent it is held that interest on additional tax as determined by Revisional Authority is due from date of said order(s), are set aside.
9. No other argument has been addressed.
10. All the above said 15 appeals are, accordingly, allowed, as above.
11. Pending misc. applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
14.10.2025 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
lucky JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
For Subsequent orders see VATAP-131-2019 Decided by HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL;
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA 7 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:52:33 :::