Rejection Of Correction Plea Cannot Be Challenged In VAT Revision: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court on 12 October held that Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh VAT Act does not permit a revision petition against an order rejecting a correction application under Section 47(1).

A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Mohan Goel and Romesh Verma dismissed a revision petition filed by Super Power Steels against the Tax Tribunal's rejection of its application to correct an earlier order. They held:

“No revision is maintainable under Section 48 of the Act against such an order passed in an application under Section 47(1) of the Act.”

Super Power Steels challenged a tax demand and claimed benefits under a tax deferment scheme. After the Tax Tribunal rejected its appeal, the company approached the High Court but later withdrew its petition with permission to seek relief before the Tribunal.

Subsequently, the company applied to the Tribunal to correct its earlier order. The Tribunal rejected the application, finding no apparent mistake in its decision and noting that it had already considered the relevant documents and arguments. Super Power Steels then approached the High Court again.

The Bench also noted that the company had withdrawn its earlier petition without obtaining permission to challenge the same order before the High Court again. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sarguja Transport Service, the judges reiterated that a party cannot revive the same challenge after withdrawing a petition without obtaining such permission.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable while allowing the company to pursue any other legal remedy available to it.

For the Company: Advocate Ajay Vaidya.

For Respondents: Additional Advocate General Pushpinder Jaswal.