IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court's jurisdiction in reference matters under the Chhattisgarh Value Added Sales Tax Act is advisory and limited to questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order.

ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. In an appeal preferred under Section 55(2)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Sales Tax Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act of 2005’), the short question involved is to the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 55(2)(b) of the Act of 2005 to require the Board / Tribunal to make a reference on refusal of the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) to make a reference under Section 55(1) of the Act of 2005 finding no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal, in the instant case, dated 28-10-2022?

2. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant facts which would be absolutely necessary to decide the question.

3. The petitioner herein is registered under the provisions of the Act of 2005 and held TIN No.22824205936 and engaged in the business of purchase and sale of Heavy Earth Moving Machines (HEMM). This dispute relates to the financial year commencing from 1-4-2015 to 31-3-2016 and the petitioner was subjected to ex parte order dated 26-2-2020 based on best judgment by the assessing authority in terms of Section 21(5) of the Act of 2005 directing the petitioner herein to deposit an amount of Rs.1,39,042/- towards tax, penalty and interest as well. Feeling aggrieved against the said ex parte order, the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal under Section 48(1) of the Act of 2005 before the appellate authority which was dismissed finding no sufficient evidence produced by the petitioner to substantiate his point raised in the appeal which was subjected to second appeal before the appellate authority under Section 48(2) of the Act of 2005 which was also dismissed by order dated 28-10-2022 passed by the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur holding that the petitioner has failed to produce books of accounts to the authority to its satisfaction and the order passed by the assessing authority affirmed by the appellate authority is in accordance with law. The petitioner finding that the ex parte order of the assessing authority dated 26-2-2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bilaspur Division No.1 was affirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 2-8-2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Chhattisgarh, and that his further appeal under Section 48(2) of the Act of 2005 was also dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 28-10-2022, invoked the reference jurisdiction of the Tribunal and power to be exercised by the Tribunal under Section 55(1) of the Act of 2005 requiring the Board / Tribunal to refer the matter to the High Court, as question of law arises out of the order dated 28-10-2022 passed by the Tribunal. However, by the impugned order dated 12-4-2023, the Tribunal has refused to make reference to this Court and in view of that, the petitioner has filed application under Section 55(2) of the Act of 2005 to require the Tribunal to make reference. This is how the matter is before us to consider as to whether appropriate order can be passed requiring the Board / Tribunal to make reference.

4. Mr. Vivek Chopda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that from the order dated 28-10-2022 passed by the Tribunal, question of law has arisen which was set out by the petitioner in the application under Section 55(1) of the Act of 2005 and which has not been considered and the application for making reference has been refused though there was sufficient ground to make reference.

5. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent / Revenue, would submit that the Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that question of law does not arise for consideration out of the order dated 28-10-2022 and therefore the Board / Tribunal has rightly declined jurisdiction under Section 55(1) of the Act of 2005 and as such, the present tax case deserves to be rejected, as the reference jurisdiction is advisory j