SYNTHETIC PROCESSORS, BAROTI, (PVT) LTD, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH. Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition under section 9 (2) of Central Sales Tax Act read with section 31 (4) of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, has been filed by M/s. Synthetic Processors Pvt. Ltd., Baroti District Solan against the order dated 7 -10 -1983 passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh in respect of the assessment years 1972 -73, 1973 -74, 1974 -75, 1975 -76 and 1976 -77 Although five separate revision petitions have been preferred by the petitioner, the facts involved In all the revision petitions are the same and arc directed against the order of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner Therefore, it appears expedient in the interest of justice to take them up together for disposal.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are, that the petitioner is a private company engaged in the manufacture and the sale of PVC material and is registered as a dealer under the HP General Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, The petitioner, under the mistaken belief that it was liable to pay Central Sales Tax, deposited the tax along with the returns of these five assessment years However, no tax under the Central Sales Tax could be collected on the Inter -State made by the petitioner during the period, in view of the order passed by the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in C. W. P. No. 94 of 1977 Himachal Conductors Pvt. Ltd and another v. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioners {South Zone), Himachal Pradesh, This order had not been modified or set aside by the Supreme Court. In fact, S.L.P by the State against this order was rejected by the Supreme Court and therefore was binding on the parties. The petitioner having been assessed to the Central Sales Tax on the Inter -State Saks vide assessment order dated 2 -8 -1978 filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (South Zone) It was held by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner that the levy of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act was illegal vide his order dated 31 -3 -19 -3 This order was challenged by the Assessing Authority in a revision petition before the Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The grounds taken in the revision petition by the Assessing Authority were that the petitioners time barred appeal had been entertained by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and moreover, the appeal was not signed by a person duly authorised by the petitioner company. The Excise Taxation Commissioner sec -aside the order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner on the ground that an appeal which was barred by limitation had been entertained by him and entertaining a time barred appeal was bad in law. According to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner the period of limitation started running from the date when the orders of assessment were announced. It was further held by him that as on these days the manager of the petitioner Company was present and thus the petitioner was aware of the assessment order and could have preferred an appeal within the stipulated period. He also held that the memorandum of appeal had not been signed by person authorised to do so.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Devinder Gupta, Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and perused the court record, The contention of the petitioner is that the appeal proffered before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner was not time barred as the period of limitation would run from the date the order passed by the Assessing Authority was supplied to the assessee in terms of the provision of section 30 (1) of the H. P. General Sales Tax Act and Rule 73 (i) framed there under, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that according to the provisions of section 30 (i) and Rule 73 (1) a certified copy of the assessment order along with a copy of the notice was required to be supplied to the petitioner by the appropriate Assessing Authority and the period of limitation would run from the date the certified copy of the assessment order was received by the petitioner and not from the date when the order was announced by the Assessing authority even through at the time of announcement of the order, the petitioners representative was present, The argument of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner was that the appeal preferred by the petitioner could not have dean entertained by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner as these were barred by limitation.