Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of VAT Reference Nos. 9 and 10 of 2010, VATAP Nos. 4, 6, 17 to 19, 27 to 30, 48 to 50, 62 to 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72 to 75, 84 to 86, 103, 109, 112, 113, 124, 125, 140, 141, 142, 147, 181, 185 to 188 of 2012, 5 to 9, 11, 19 to 23, 71, 72, 92, 96 to 98, 100 of 2013 and CWP Nos. 15346 of 2011, 8548, 9159, 14394, 14437, 19788, 20682, 20684, 24171 and 25993 of 2013, as according to learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved in all these cases is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from VATAP No. 48 of 2012.
(2.) VATAP No. 48 of 2012 has been preferred by the appellant -assessee under Section 36 of the Haryana Valued Added tax Act, 2003 (in short, the "HVAT Act") against the orders dated 21.9.2011, Annexure A.6, 7.10.2009, Annexure A.4 and 29.2.2008, Annexure A.2 passed by the respondent authorities. As per order dated January 30, 2013 passed by this Court, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon questions of law framed in VAT Reference No. 9 of 2010 as the questions of law arising in this case, which read thus: - "(i) What is the amount of 'deferred tax' within the meaning of Section 61(2)(d)(iii) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and how will the amount of one half of the amount of deferred tax payable upfront along with the filing of the tax returns be computed under section 61(2)(d)(iii) of the Act? (ii) How the tax benefit in case of payment of one half of the amount of deferred tax upfront along with the tax returns will be counted towards exhausting the capping limit on the amount of deferment of payment of tax? (iii) Whether the clarification issued under Section 56(3) of the Act by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana in Haldi Ram's case dated 12.7.2004 dealt with the aforesaid questions and if it did, then was the Tribunal right in deciding the above questions raised in appeals? (iv) Is interest payable under the provisions of Section 14(6) of the Act on short payment of one half of the amount of deferred tax calculated in accordance with the Act and the Rules made thereunder?
(3.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved, as available on the record of VATAP No. 48 of 2012 may be noticed. The appellant is a dealer registered with the HVAT Act as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the CST Act") and is filing the returns and discharging tax obligations in accordance therewith. It is engaged in the manufacturing and trading of plastic moulding parts etc. The appellant was allowed exemption/deferment from payment of tax in view of industrial policy as defined in Rules 28A, 28B and 28C of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for brevity, "the 1975 Rules"). After introduction of the HVAT Act w.e.f. 1.4.2003, the units enjoying the benefit of exemption were given an option for deferment of tax under Section 61 of the said Act. Assessment for the relevant assessment year in the case of the appellant was framed by the assessing authority vide order dated 15.2.2007, Annexure A.1. The case was taken suo motu by the revisional authority. On receipt of notice, the appellant put in appearance and filed written submissions. According to the appellant, the revisional authority without considering the clarification given by the Secretary in the case of M/s. Haldiram Foods (P.) Limited inflicted financial liability on it and order dated 29.2.2008, Annexure A.2 was passed against it. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal on 11.5.2008 which was rejected vide order dated 7.10.2009, Annexure A.4. Thereafter, the appellant filed review application before the Tribunal on 18.3.2010 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 21.9.2011, Annexure A.6. Hence the present appeal.;