9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1985, issued by the State of Haryana with the concurrence of the Central Government under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. In the case reported as Food Corporation of India v. State of Haryana [1987] 66 STC 7, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court on 26th November, 1986 that the earlier orders which were subject-matter of the decision in Vishnu Agencies' case [1978] 42 STC 31 (SC) were different from the levy order under which the State Government sets of machinery for compulsory acquisition of the essential commodities. It was therefore held by this Court that the Supreme Court decision in Chittar Mal Narain" Das v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1970] 26 STC 344, relied upon by the Division Bench earlier in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these cases levying sales tax would not be correct under the law. Therefore, the orders of the Tribunal in these cases upholding the findings of the lower authorities would need to be reviewed. The said orders are hereby reviewed and following the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the appeals in all the 57 cases are accepted as these transactions, having taken place before 2nd February, 1983, cannot be considered to be transactions of sale and cannot be subjected to levy of sales tax. The appeals having now been accepted, if the dealers have deposited any part of the tax, the same should be refunded to the petitioners as per law." After the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioners vide their application dated 11th N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim for refund was within limitation. According to the learned counsel, the cases are fully covered by the following judgments of the Supreme Court reported as Sales Tax Officer, Banaras v. Kanhaiya Lal Makund Lal Saraf [1958] 9 STC 747, State of Kerala v. Aluminium Industries Ltd. [1965] 16 STC 689 and Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 971. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. In Shri Vallabh Glass Works' case AIR 1984 SC 971 the Supreme Court observed in para 9 of the judgment as under: "Whether relief should be granted to a petitioner under article 226 of the Constitution where the cause of action had arisen in the remote p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent writ petitions in this Court on 31st December, 1987. Thus, there is absolutely no delay on the part of the petitioners to approach this Court for the refund of the amount. The stand taken by the State of Haryana that it has gone in appeal against the judgments of this Court to the Supreme Court is of no consequence unless any stay orders are obtained from the Supreme Court in this behalf. In the aforementioned circumstances, both the petitions succeed and are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to the refund of the amount as held by the Sales Tax Tribunal on the basis of the judgments of this Court. The amounts as claimed by the petitioners in these writ petitions be refunded to them after verification within three months from tod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
