Last Updated on March 2, 2026 by Satish Mishra

The Punjab and Haryana High Court regularly handles HVAT (Haryana Value Added Tax) cases, focusing on disputes over statutory pre-deposits, tax liability on contracts, and assessment timelines. Key recent trends show strict enforcement of pre-deposit requirements under Section 33(5) and validation of input tax credit (ITC) on industrial losses.

Key HVAT Cases in Punjab & Haryana High Court:

Mandatory Pre-Deposit (Section 33(5)): The High Court consistently holds that statutory pre-deposits for VAT appeals are mandatory, and authorities lack the discretion to waive them, rejecting pleas of financial hardship. Failure to furnish security leads to dismissal of appeals.
Tax on Contract/Construction (Section 7(5)): Cases often debate whether contractors are lump-sum dealers or subject to regular VAT on construction activities. The court has examined whether contracts for medical services (e.g., in hospitals) constitute a “sale” of goods.
Input Tax Credit (ITC) on Losses: The court has allowed ITC on evaporation losses of petroleum products, ruling that such losses are not excluded from VAT.
Limitation Period: The court has addressed the limitation period for,best judgment assessments, holding that assessments conducted years after the statutory deadline are invalid.
Revision Proceedings: Challenges to show cause notices for the revision of assessment orders under Section 34 of the HVAT Act are frequent.

Disclaimer: Case outcomes depend on specific facts. The information above is based on recent legal reporting up to February 2026.

HVAT Case in Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the refund was not processed as per assessment order u/s 15(1).

This post is a summary of judgment wherein the petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that no refund has been issued to it as per the assessment order dated 18.03.2015 issued under Section 15(1) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, the Act) for the assessment year 2011-12. The Court held, “the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner as projected by it in the representation dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure P-2) within a period of three weeks from today.”

Also Read- High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Quorum:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

Argued by:

For the petitioner: Mr. Malkiat Singh, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Haryana

Also Read- M/S Gupta Medical Hall, Panipat … vs Haryana Vat Tribunal

Facts and evidence presented by both parties.

Petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that no refund has been issued to it as per the assessment order dated 18.03.2015 issued under Section 15(1) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, the Act) for the assessment year 2011-12, amounting to `20,87,755/- i.e. a sum of `12,42,719/- as refund amount and `8,45,036/- as interest amount applicable as per the provisions of Section 20(10) of the Act, which excess was carry forward wrongly instead of a refund of the excess amount along with interest at the rate of 1% per month from May 2015 to till date. Highlighting this aspect, the petitioner had been approaching the respondents by way of various reminders with the final reminder being dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure P-2). The said representation/reminder till date has not been finalized despite the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, having written to the Deputy Excise and Taxation and CWP-19491-2020:{2}: Commissioner (ST), Panchkula-respondent No.3, vide letter dated 25.03.2020 (Annexure P-3) to finalize the said claim of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner also states that the claim of the petitioner is covered (M/s Anant Raj Cons. & Development (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and another), decided on 19.11.2012. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner at this stage would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner as projected by it in representation dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure P-2) within some specified time. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr.DeepakBalyan, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice.

Also Read- M/S Dhingra Jardline … vs State Of Haryana & Ors

Judgment:

Without going into the merits of the case or commenting thereon, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner as projected by it in the representation dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure P-2) within a period of three weeks from today. The final order as passed on the claim of the petitioner be conveyed to it within a further period of one week. In case the petitioner is held entitled to any refund, the same be paid to it within a further period of two weeks.

Also Read- haryana+vat | India Judgments | Law | CaseMine

Post Written by – Research Team of LegalSeva (LawFirm) of Satish Mishra Advocate. Responses from Google’s AI Overview included in Post.

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your case.

For case specific advice, please contact best Taxation Expert lawyers advocates in Tax GST VAT Service tax in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Zirakpur Derabassi etc