Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THE assessee, who was a dealer registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") and engaged in the business of rice shelling, has filed this VAT appeal against the order dated February 15, 2008 passed by the VAT Tribunal, Punjab, whereby the revision filed by the assessee under Sub -section (3) of Section 21 of the Act against the order dated August 9, 2006 passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner -cum -Revisional Authority, Hoshiarpur, revising the assessment of the appellant in exercise of suo moru revisional power under Section 21(1) of the Act, has been dismissed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that for assessment year 1996 -97, the assessment of the assessee was framed by the Assessing Officer on March 27, 2000 and the assessee was allowed the refund of Rs. 90,702 on account of excess purchase tax deposited by him. This refund was granted to the assessee while coming to the conclusion that the assessee was not liable to pay purchase tax on the purchase of paddy out of which rice manufactured by the assessee was sent out of India. After the expiry of more than six years, the revisional authority in exercise of the suo motu power contained in Sub -section (1) of Section 21 of the Act, issued notice to the assessee on March 4, 2006 for revising the order of assessment dated March 27, 2000 on the ground that in view of the decision of this court in Veerumal Monga and Sons v. State of Haryana reported in, [2001] 123 STC 158 :, [2000] 16 PHT 304, decided on July 13, 2000, the purchase tax was leviable on the paddy purchased by the assessee, and the assessing officer while committing grave illegality had illegally ordered for refund of Rs. 90,702. The assessee objected to the re -opening of the assessment on the ground of limitation as well as on the ground that the said judgment pertains to the State of Haryana and the same is not applicable in the State of Punjab as the provisions of the Act are different.
(3.) THE revisional authority vide its order dated August 9, 2006 passed the order while observing that in view of the decision dated July 13, 2000 rendered by this court in Veerumal Monga's case, [2001] 123 STC 158 :, [2000] 16 PHT 304, the assessee was liable to pay the purchase tax on the paddy out of which rice manufactured by the assessee was sent out of India, and raised the demand of Rs. 90,702. The said order was subsequently rectified vide order dated March 20, 2007, whereby the amount of Rs. 90,702 was reduced to Rs. 71,185.;