9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eopened under section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Assessing Authority vide its order dated October 30, 1981, held the petitioner liable to pay tax on the purchase of rice bran at 7 per cent in respect of the assessment year 1977-78. The petitioner's appeal having been dismissed, it approached the Sales Tax Tribunal. Vide order dated April 15, 1987, a copy of which has been produced as annexure P3 with the writ petition, the Tribunal found that rice bran used by the petitioner for extraction of oil "would be classified as fodder ..... under entry No. 34 of Schedule B appended to the State Act and would not be liable to tax even if these goods were not used as fodder". Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having attained finality, the amount paid by the petitioner deserves to be refunded. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Khetarpal, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the Act being within the legislative competence of the Legislature, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed by it. In this case, it is the admitted position that the petitioner is extracting oil from rice bran. It purchases the material from different dealers. It is also the admitted position that in view of the existing provisions in the statute, it did not pay the purchase tax and consequently it must have worked out its cost of production keeping in view the price actually paid by it. That having happened, the Assessing Authority had initially he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of tax, the legislation partakes of the character of a confiscatory provision and imposes an unreasonable burden on the assessee. Consequently, in a case where a dealer collects the tax but succeeds in avoiding its payment on account of some lacuna in the statute and the Legislature makes the amendment retrospectively, the courts uphold the provision because no unreasonable or unforeseen liability is created. Such a legislation avoids undue enrichment. However, in a case where a totally unforeseen burden is sought to be imposed, the courts intervene. In the present case, it is clear that the liability which was sought to be imposed on the petitioner, was wholly unforeseen. It was unreasonable, when the petitioner's appeal was accepted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
