- (1.) This order shall dispose of VATAP Nos. 132 and 162 of 2013, as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the facts and the issues involved are similar. However, the facts are being extracted from VATAP No. 132 of 2013. VATAP No. 132 of 2013 has been preferred by the assessee under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, "the HVAT Act") against the orders dated June 13, 2008, March 5, 2009 and May 8, 2013, annexures A3, A5 and A7, respectively passed by the authorities below for the assessment year 2003-04, claiming following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Haryana Tax Tribunal was not wrong in not allowing the appeal on preliminary objection raised by the appellant that the revisional proceedings are barred by limitation? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Haryana Tax Tribunal was not wrong in not appreciating the provision of section 15(1) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with rules 27(3) of the Rules? (iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not wrong in not appreciating provisions of review in section 35 of the Act and in passing a mechanical order?"
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in VATAP No. 132 of 2013 may be noticed. The appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is also registered under the HVAT Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act). It is engaged in the manufacturing and trading of iron and steel. The annual return was filed on November 19, 2004. Assessment for the assessment year 2003-04 was framed as deemed assessment vide order dated November 30, 2004 with the filing of the annual return in form R2 in view of rule 27(3) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 (in short, "the HVAT Rules"). A formal order was passed on November 25, 2005, annexure A1 under section 15(1) of the Act as deemed assessment. Thus the assessment was framed in accordance with the returns filed by the dealer and as per turnover disclosed, as deemed assessment with the filing of annual return. Thereafter, the revisional authority took up the matter suo motu and issued notice dated January 30, 2007, annexure A2, alleging certain irregularities and improprieties. The assessee filed submissions but the revisional authority passed order dated June 13, 2008, annexure A3, against the appellant and communicated the same to the appellant on July 1, 2008. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant raised preliminary objection regarding limitation and jurisdiction of the revisional authority to pass order beyond the provisions of law on the subject. The Tribunal vide order dated March 17, 2009, annexure A5, rejected the preliminary objection. The appellant filed review petition before the Tribunal which was also rejected vide order dated May 8, 2013, annexure A7. Hence the instant appeals by the assessees.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;