Jubilant Foodworks Ltd. v. State Of Haryana And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner challenged the validity of the definition of “sale price” in Section 2(1)(zg) of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003, the Government of Haryana Excise and Taxation Department clarification dated 22.08.2013 treating the element of service tax as part of sale price, and two notices dated 25.04.2014 and 21.08.2014 issued to the petitioner. The writ petition was entertained because the Tribunal, before which an appeal against the clarification is maintainable, was not functional at the time; the Tribunal has since become functional but a vacancy created by the retirement of the third Member remains unfilled.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the definition of “sale price” in Section 2(1)(zg) of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003 is valid.
2. Whether the Government clarification dated 22.08.2013 (treating service tax element as part of sale price) is valid and liable to be challenged.
3. Whether the notices dated 25.04.2014 and 21.08.2014 issued to the petitioner are liable to the relief sought.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal where the appeal lies was not functional, justifying invocation of writ jurisdiction.

State's Arguments

• Learned counsel for the State, after consulting the Advocate General, submitted that the vacancy caused by the retirement of the third Member would be filled within two months.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the petitioner has an appellate remedy against the Government's clarification under Section 56(3) of the Haryana VAT Act, which requires a Bench of not less than three Members. The writ was initially entertained because the Tribunal was not functional; although the Tribunal is now functional, the third Member's vacancy remains. Having received the State's assurance that the vacancy will be filled within two months, the Court concluded that the appropriate forum is the Tribunal and relegated the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal. The Court preserved the petitioner's position by directing that an appeal filed within 30 days shall not be dismissed on account of delay and shall be decided on merits. The Court expressly declined to examine the validity of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Haryana VAT Act in this proceeding.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

Direct effects and orders:

• The writ petition is disposed of.
• The petitioner is relegated to file an appeal before the Tribunal against the Government clarification; if such appeal is filed within 30 days it shall not be dismissed for delay and shall be considered on merits.
• The vacancy in the Tribunal (third Member) shall be filled within two months (as submitted by State counsel and recorded by the Court).
• The Court has not adjudicated the validity of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Haryana VAT Act; the petitioner remains at liberty to challenge it later.

No broader precedent or legal principle was established beyond the disposition and directions recorded above.