Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 459 (HP)

AMBA METALS v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-05-23

A.M.KHANWILKAR, R.B.MISRA

body2013
JUDGMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. Rule. 2. AS short question is involved, all these petitions are taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. Counsel for the respondents waives notice for final disposal. The sole argument, canvassed before us by the petitioner, is that the benefit, which had accrued to the petitioner in terms of Deferred Payment of Tax Scheme 1999 and has been recognized by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, in his order dated 7th March, 2007, in fact, has been taken away by the Revisional Authority, without even adverting to the specific plea, taken by the petitioner in that behalf, while opposing the suo-motu revision, proceedings initiated by the Authority, which culminated with the impugned order dated 24th December, 2012. This grievance finds place in Paragraph-5 (vi) of the said order. However, on perusing the reasons, recorded by the Revisional Authority-cum-Excise & Taxation Commissioner, in his order dated 24th December, 2012, no discussion in that behalf is found. In other words, this specific plea, taken by the petitioner, has not been dealt with by the Revisional Authority though it was a material fact for determining the liability of the petitioner, if covered by the Deferred Payment of Tax Scheme 1999 as held by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) which decision has attained finality and is binding on the Department. 3. IN the circumstances, we quash and set aside the decision of the Revisional Authority-cum-Excise & Taxation Commissioner, H.P. dated 24th December, 2012 and instead leave it open to the Revisional Authority to continue with the action of the suo-motu revision, if so advised, which will have to be decided afresh in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made in this decision with reference to the binding decision of the Financial Commissioner dated 20th November, 2007. 4. WE place on record the stand, taken by the respondents that the benefit under Scheme of 1995 would flow to the petitioner only from the date of production which, according to the official record, is dated 4th June, 2005. In the event, the Revisional Authority intends to continue with the suo-motu revision action, is free to consider the efficacy of this contention after giving opportunity to the petitioner and decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law. In the event, the Revisional Authority intends to continue with the suo-motu revision action, is free to consider the efficacy of this contention after giving opportunity to the petitioner and decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law. We are not expressing any opinion, one way or the other, with regard to that controversy. In the event, the Revisional Authority decides to proceed with the suo-motu revision action and the decision is adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner may have to first exhaust statutory remedy against that decision which will have to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. 5. PETITION disposed of on the above terms.