- (1.) This order will dispose of four appeals bearing VAT Appeal Nos. 3, 4,5 and 6 of 2011 raising the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in directing the appellant to produce complete H-Forms and also to prove that the purchase of paddy was made after and for the purpose of complying with the export order whereas those documents were already produced while framing the assessment under the CST Act, 1956 - All the appeals have been filed by same dealer. The assessment years involved are 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01.
(2.) The facts have been taken from VAT Appeal No. 4 of 2011 pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that assessment of the appellant was framed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.2.2002 and the benefit of rebate of tax on purchase of paddy, rice manufactured out of which was exported outside India was not granted. The appellant preferred appeal. The matter was remitted back for reconsideration. After remand, the case was taken up and decided afresh vide order dated 3.11.2005 and the claim of the appellant for rebate of tax on purchase of paddy, rice manufactured out of which was exported outside India was declined, whereas the transaction of export sale as such was admitted and the benefit thereof was granted while framing the assessment under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 against statutory "H" form. Aggrieved against the order of assessment, the appellant preferred appeal, which was accepted by the first appellate authority. It was directed that rebate of tax paid on purchase of paddy, rice manufactured out of which was exported, for which form 'H' was furnished, be granted. The tax be re-computed following the earlier judgment of the Sales Tax Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 154 of 2002-03 M/s Rama Krishna Trading Co. Jalandhar v. State of Punjab. The State, being aggrieved against the order passed by the first appellate authority, preferred appeal before the Tribunal.
(3.) The Tribunal, vide order dated 1.1.2009, accepted the same and set aside the direction given by the first appellate authority, whereby the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority for re-calculation of the tax. The appellant filed rectification application referring to the judgment of this court in GSTR No. 14 of 2005 State of Punjab v. M/s Rattna Rice and General Mills, Fazilka, decided on 17.3.2009 opining that rebate of tax on the type of transaction in question was available under Section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act'). The Tribunal, while accepting the rectification application, directed that the Assessing Authority shall decide the issue as directed by the first appellate authority in terms of the judgment of this Court in M/s Rattna Rice and General Mills's case . However, the condition was put in that the dealer shall be liable to produce complete 'H' form and prove that the paddy was purchased for the purpose of complying with any export order. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by adding word in the judgment of this court in M/s Rattna Rice & General Mills' case , where the issue involved was identical to the issue in the present set of appeals. Once there was no such direction issued in that case, the words added by the Tribunal in the order passed in rectification application were totally un-called for. The State accepted the verdict in M/s Rattna Rice & General Mills' case . He further submitted that in Section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Act, simple words used are that the goods had been sold in the course of export outside the territory of India. There is no condition attached. The paddy and rice have been held to be a single commodity for the purpose of export in terms of Section 15 (ca) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Reference was also made to the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2010 36 VST 1 (SC). It was further submitted that transaction of sale of rice was in the course of export outside the territory of India was accepted by the Assessing Authority while framing assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and it was so recorded in the order of assessment that 'H' forms have been perused and placed on record, meaning thereby that those were verified and only thereafter the requisite rebate was granted to the appellant.;