M/S Jai Jai Ram Singh v. State Of Haryana And ORS
VAT-19-2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:056395-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH VATAP-19-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.04.2024 M/s Jai Jai Ram Singh . . . . Appellant Vs.
State of Haryana and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA ****
Present:
Mr. Malkiat Singh, Advocate with Mr. Narinder Sindher, Advocate Mr. Rajat Turka, Advocate Ms. Raksha Raghav, Advocate for the petitoiner.
Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana.
**** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Revisional Authority has wrongly taken the total considerations received by the appellant assessing at Rs.47,72,76,278/- instead of Rs.45,02,53,910/-.
2. Learned counsel submits that there is no documentary proof which could have been made as a basis to arrive at such conclusion.
3. We find that the Revisional Authority has upon examining the case file found that the dealer has received gross payments worth Rs.47,72,76,278/- but had wrongly shown gross receipts at Rs.45,02,53,910/-, which resulted into under-assessment and excess refund. The findings are factual, and both the Revisional Authority as well as the Haryana Tax Tribunal have concurred on the findings of fact.
MOHIT GOYAL 2024.04.25 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
VAT-19-2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:056395-DB
4. While in appeal, we are only required to examine questions of law and a pure question of fact cannot be examined in VAT Appeal before us. In view thereof, we do not find any reason to interfere, since there is no question of law.
5. A document was handed over during the course of hearing to show that the total gross receipts were otherwise. However, we find that the said document was never placed either in appeal or before the Revisional Authority. At this stage, we are unable to examine such documents which are handed over only in Courts without any supporting affidavit. The same argument is therefore rejected at this stage.
6. Appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
7. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE April 25, 2024 Mohit goyal
1. Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes/No
2. Whether reportable?
Yes/No MOHIT GOYAL 2024.04.25 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document