2011 (1) TMI 1260 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the appellant has sold parched groundnut or unparched groundnut? Held that - In view of undisputed legal position that the parched groundnuts are different from groundnuts and were not covered by the category of declared goods mere fact that the Tribunal held to the contrary in a particular case is not a ground to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 regarding tax rate on sale of parched groundnuts.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with a writ petition challenging an order of assessment passed by the revisional authority under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The revisional authority revised the assessment order to apply the general tax rate to the sale of parched groundnuts instead of the rate applicable to groundnuts categorized as declared goods. The petitioner, a registered dealer, had filed returns for the assessment year 1982-83, and the revisional authority argued that parched groundnuts were distinct from groundnuts and should be taxed differently. The court referred to various judgments to support this distinction, emphasizing that parched groundnuts were not considered oil seeds and were commercially different commodities. The Tribunal affirmed the revisional authority's decision, noting that parched groundnuts were not declared goods and should be taxed at the general rate.

The petitioner contended that in another case, the Tribunal had applied a lower tax rate applicable to declared goods to parched groundnuts. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the legal position was clear that parched groundnuts were distinct from groundnuts and did not fall under the category of declared goods. The court held that the mere fact that the Tribunal had ruled differently in a separate case was not sufficient grounds to overturn the impugned order. As a result, the petition challenging the assessment order was dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the revisional authority's decision to apply the general tax rate to the sale of parched groundnuts, considering them as separate commodities from groundnuts. The court emphasized the legal distinction between the two and rejected the petitioner's argument based on a different ruling in a separate case.