AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, ACJ. (Oral)
This petition seeks to assail the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 (Annexures P-8 & P-9) for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively, which came to be communicated to the petitioner on 24.11.2020.
The primary ground, on which the order of assessment is assailed, is that for subsequent assessment year 2013-14 the controversy raised herein has already been adjudicated by the Haryana Tax Tribunal (hearinafter referred as 'Tribunal') vide its order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure P-12), which has attained finality. It has therefore been urged that given the Tribunal has taken a different view on identical facts, the assessing authority can not be permitted to take a view contrary to the view taken by the Tribunal.
At the time of initial entertainment of the petition, the revenue authority had made a statement that a review application has been filed seeking review of the order of the Tribunal dated 28.05.2019 which is pending. Such contention was, therefore, noticed in order of this court dated 09.08.2023, which is reproduced hereunder:
“Question for consideration in the present case is whether before cancellation of the registration of the dealer, can recovery be made from the petitioner-assessee, who has sold the tobacco to this company, whose registration was cancelled.
The assessment year 2013-2014 was before the cut off date of cancellation of registration and this is a case of assessment year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.
Learned State counsel has informed that with respect to the decision given by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2013-2014, a review application is pending. Since the Tribunal has not been constituted, the review application is not likely to be listed in near future.
The matter is adjourned sine die.
To be listed for hearing after the review application is decided by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2013-2014.
Learned State counsel has further informed that the refund due for the assessment year 2013-2014 has been adjusted towards the demand of 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.
This Court is of the view that since only the review application is pending, the operation of Annexures P-8 and P-9 are stayed keeping in view that before cancellation of the registration, the deal of the assessee cannot be rejected.”
The petition has since been filed stating that the review application has been rejected. Noticing such fact we permitted the counsel for the revenue authority to obtain instructions and apprise the court as to whether the challenge is likely to be made to the order of the Tribunal or not. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, representing the revenue authority, makes a statement on the basis of instructions obtained, that the State does not propose to challenge the order of Tribunal dated 28.05.2019.
From the stand taken by the respondents it is apparent that the order of the Tribunal dated 28.05.2019, passed in respect of subsequent assessment period i.e. 2013-14, has attained finality. The Tribunal has taken a view that in respect of inter-State sale, any subsequent cancellation of registration of the buyer would not invalidate the transaction, once Form C has been issued. In the facts of the present case also the transactions are inter-State and Form C was issued. Once that be the position and the judgment of the Tribunal has attained finality, it would not be open for the assessing officer to take a view which goes contrary to the adjudication made on the point by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 28.05.2019.
In that view of the matter, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of assessment under challenge are quashed in terms of the adjudication by the Tribunal dated 28.05.2019.
The pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.