Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1995 (7) TMI 395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ture of sugar. Sugarcane, bardana (gunny bags), ancillary machinery and material, etc., are purchased by the company for the aforesaid purpose. The petitioner-company is a registered dealer under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1973") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Central Act, 1956"). Prior to the Act of 1973, petitioner-company was registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referr to as "the Act of 1948") as applicable to Haryana with the amendments made by the State of Haryana from time to time. Petitioner-company filed their return for the year 1971-72. Consequently, an assessment order was passed. The Deputy Excise and Taxati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , 1973." The respondent vide impugned notice proposed to revise the assessment order in exercise of his powers delegated by the Government. It further provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner vide impugned notice. It would be expedient at this stage to notice that sections 4-B and 11-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, in pith and substance, are in pari materia of sections 9 and 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The petitioner-company replied to the notice and took the stand in pari materia to the grounds taken in the writ petition, i.e., sugarcane being an agricultural produce sold by growers, etc., is covered by entry 25 of Schedule "B" of the Act of 1948, consequently no purchase tax was leviable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... viable if the dealer purchases goods other than specified in Schedule "B" to the Act; sugarcane is mentioned in entry No. 25 of Schedule "B" to the Act, hence no purchase tax could be levied. Particular turnover having escaped assessment during the relevant year, the revisional authority in view of provisions of section 40(1) could not proceed in view of limitation of five years having expired for taking action under section 31 of the Act of 1973. No purchase tax is leviable on sugarcane as it is a tax-free item, as having been purchased from the growers or their family members. The revisional authority having once exercised his jurisdiction under section 40(1) of the Act, could not reopen the matter again and again. Similar notice was ch .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that since the Full Bench cannot examine the correctness of law enunciated by another coequal Bench, so the petition be decided by a larger Bench of five Judges. Petitioners contended that the questions raised in the present petitions are squarely covered by the questions raised in Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills' case (C.W.P. No. 661 of 1984) referred to above. Consequently, the matter be examined along with the said writ petition. It is in the facts and circumstances collated above, that lead these petitions to come up for hearing before us. The vital questions posed for consideration during the course of arguments and put in the form of written submissions may be formulated thus: (i) Sections 6(1), 2(p) and 27(1)(a)(i) of the Hary .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Neither there is any illegality or impropriety in the assessment order nor can any be attributed, in view of the fact that at the relevant time sugarcane being in Schedule "B" item no purchase tax was liable on it. There is no material on the file to take suo motu action for reopening the assessment order. Before the matter came up for consideration before us as a sequel to the various proceedings, as narrated above, honourable the Supreme Court decided the matter vide its judgment reported in Jagatjit Sugar Mills v. State of Punjab [1995] 96 STC 344; JT 1994 (6) SC 534 wherein the questions raised were: (i) Whether the petitioner-sugar mill is liable to pay the purchase tax on the sugarcane purchased by it from the growers of sugarcane? .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates