2002 (2) TMI 1300 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notification dated March 29, 1996 and orders of assessment for assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the notification dated March 29, 1996, and the assessment orders based on the ground that the notification was ultra vires section 15 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The petitioner argued that the action of levying sales tax at a rate of 4 per cent on the sale of deoiled rice bran cattle feed was without jurisdiction. The petitioner sought to quash the notification and assessment orders.

The petitioner's counsel contended that under section 15 of the Act, goods specified in Schedule "B" were exempted from sales tax payment. Referring to entry 67 in Schedule "B," which included cattle feed, the counsel argued that the exemption applied to a mixture of specific items listed in the entry when combined to form cattle feed. However, the notification imposed a 4 per cent sales tax on various items, including deoiled rice bran, under entry 24, which did not align with the exemption criteria of entry 67.

The Court noted that the exemption from sales tax applied to a mixture of items forming cattle feed, not to individual components like rice bran deoiled. The impugned notification levied a 4 per cent sales tax on items, including deoiled rice bran, under entry 24, which differed from the exemption criteria of entry 67. Therefore, the petitioner's challenge based on this discrepancy was deemed unsustainable.

Regarding the validity of the assessment orders, the Court stated that such matters should be raised before the appropriate authority through an appeal as per the Act's provisions, especially when full facts were not presented before the Court. The petitioner's argument citing past Sales Tax Tribunal decisions exempting deoiled rice bran cake from sales tax was considered irrelevant as those decisions predated the challenged notification. Without evidence of post-notification decisions, the Tribunal's past views did not support the petitioner's case.

Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the petitions and dismissed them in limine, indicating that the challenges to the notification and assessment orders were unfounded based on the legal analysis presented during the proceedings.