9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1982 (8) TMI 207 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues: Validity of Punjab General Sales Tax (Haryana Amendment and Validation) Act, 1972 imposing retrospective sales tax on wheat thresher discs and pumping sets.
Analysis: The case involved a challenge to the Punjab General Sales Tax (Haryana Amendment and Validation) Act, 1972, which imposed retrospective sales tax on wheat thresher discs and pumping sets. The writ petition was filed a decade ago to contest this retrospective imposition of sales tax. A Division Bench referred the matter to a Full Bench to decide on the constitutionality of the Act in imposing sales tax retrospectively. Subsequently, the Government of Haryana exempted the sales tax on threshers and discs, making some writ petitions irrelevant. Those petitions solely challenging the tax on threshers and discs were disposed of, while others with additional contentions were referred back to the Division Bench for further consideration. The challenge in the present writ petition was primarily based on Article 19 of the Constitution. Due to the emergency proclamation, the operation of Article 19 was suspended during an earlier hearing before the Full Bench. The matter was kept pending, and the stay order was vacated, leading to the current proceedings. The respondents relied heavily on a Division Bench judgment in a previous case, Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. State of Haryana, where the retrospective effect given to a statutory provision was upheld. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged the binding precedent and did not raise substantial challenges against it, leading to a negative answer to the question of the validity of retrospective imposition of sales tax. In light of the precedent and the lack of substantial challenges raised by the petitioner's counsel, the Court affirmed the validity of imposing sales tax retrospectively. As no other questions remained, the writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were not burdened with costs. Justice Surinder Singh and Justice Tiwana agreed with the Chief Justice's decision and reasoning.
|
