- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 29.11.2012 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in STA No. 224 of 2011-12, for the assessment year 2006-07, claiming the following questions of law:- i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Haryana Tax Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal being barred by limitation as it did not condone the delay caused on account of misguidance of the Chartered Accountant which misguided itself with provision of Section 33(6) instead of Section 33(5) of the Act that the appeal can be filed in 180 days instead of 60 days? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Haryana Tax Tribunal was right in not appreciating that the appellate authority was wrong in not providing an opportunity to the appellant to plead its case before the assessing authority and the first appellate authority was further wrong in misinterpreting the provision of Section 33(3) of the Act which never says that once the case is decided exparte, no opportunity exists for the assessee under the Act? iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal was not wrong in not appreciating the settled law that powers of the appellate authority are coterminus with that of the assessing authority? iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Haryana Tax Tribunal as well as the first appellate authority was wrong in not appreciating that the initiation of the proceedings and framing of assessment itself is bad and further that notices were not properly and legally communicated when the business of the appellant is lying closed and application for cancellation of registration certificate is pending cancellation? v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is not wrong in dismissing the appeal in limini when on merits the appellant is conducting job work of painting and power coating material supplied by the contractee and when there is no transfer of property in goods and hence question of tax does not arise which is also clear from the previous year's assessment orders?"
(2.) The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the appellant-M/s Aptech Engineers was engaged in the job work of painting and powder coating and the material used for execution was being supplied by the contractee and it was providing only labour job. The appellant had been filing returns and discharging its obligations, if any, though there was no tax liability as there was no transfer of property in goods. The assessment for the year 2006-07 was framed by the assessing authority exparte vide order dated 22.3.2010 (Annexure A-1). The notice was pasted on the last known business address whereas the appellant had already closed its business on 31.3.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority who vide order dated 20.6.2011 (Annexure A-2) dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 15.12.2011 which was barred by 70 days. Accordingly, an application for condonation of delay was filed pleading that the appellant was wrongly advised that the appeal before the Tribunal can be filed within 180 days whereas the appeal was to be filed within 60 days. The Tribunal vide order dated 29.11.2012 (Annexure A- 4) rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Hence, the present appeal.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.;