9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A copy of this notification is at annexure P3 with the writ petition. 3.. The wine contractors in the State of Haryana represented. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 also filed petitions to challenge the imposition of sales tax. The petitioners allege that during the pendency of the writ petitions, the State Government decided to reconsider the matter. Thus, they filed applications to withdraw the writ petitions. The prayer was allowed. The notification amending the Act was issued on October 15, 2001. A copy of this notification is at annexure P4 with the writ petition. However, the petitioners were told to pay tax for the period from June 26, 2001 to October 15, 2001. 4.. The provisions of the Act having been amended on June 26, 2001, notices were issued to the wine contractors for deposit of tax. A notice dated July 19, 2001 was issued to petitioner No. 1 informing it of its "liability to pay tax...on the opening stock of June 26, 2001 of 1,01,556 bottles of IMFS and 1,04,844 bottles of beer....". It was further pointed out that it had "received 1,12,548 bottles of IMFS and 1,26,000 bottles of beer....from June 26, 2001 to June 30, 2001 without payment of sales tax at the stag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch were in stock with them on June 25, 2001. 10.. On the other hand Mr. Surya Kant, Advocate-General, Haryana, submits that the sale of liquor had become a taxable event on June 26, 2001. Thus, every sale made by an excise licensee on and from June 26, 2001 is exigible to the levy of sales tax. 11.. The short question that arises for consideration is-Are the petitioners liable to pay tax on the sale of goods which were in stock with them on June 25, 2001? 12.. A brief reference to the relevant provisions is necessary. Section 6 provides for the incidence of tax. It, inter alia, says that the dealer shall be "liable to pay tax under this Act on the sale or purchase of goods by him in the State...". The first proviso to the section stipulates that this provision "shall not apply to a dealer who deals exclusively in goods specified in Schedule 'B'..." In Schedule "B", entry 24A is relevant. It provides as under: "(See sections 6 and 15) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. No. Description of goods Conditions and exceptions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24A. Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ----------------------------------------------------- Note.-If an L-4/L-5 or L-12C licensee under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (1 of 1914) purchase liquor on which sales tax has already been paid in the State, then such licensee shall not be liable to pay tax on the sale of such liquor by him." 14.. A taxing statute has to be strictly construed. The words have to be given their plain meaning. Under the Act, the tax is leviable on the first sale in the State of Haryana. Not on the first sale made after the promulgation of the Amending Act. A perusal of section 5 of the amending Act shows that entry at Sr. No. 24A was completely omitted. Thus, the exemption from payment of sales tax as contemplated under the first proviso to section 6 ceased to be available. Still further, in section 6, the stage at which the sale of Indian-made foreign liquor, etc., would be exigible to the levy of sales tax was laid down. 15.. It is the admitted position that the State of Haryana has framed the Haryana Liquor Licence Rules, 1970. The licenses are classified under these rules. Licence L.1-B is granted to a person who can sell liquor in wholesale. L.1-B.1 is granted to a person who is entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the levy of sales tax on account of entry 24A in Schedule "B", the tax was not leviable. Clearly, when an L-1 licensee purchases the liquor from the manufacturer or sells it to an L-2 licensee, the taxable event occurs. However, on account of exemption, the State's right to recover tax or the dealer's liability to pay it does not arise. 20.. A perusal of entry at Sl. No. (iii) in Schedule "C" as amended by section 6, shows that the tax is leviable "at the stage of sale made for the first time in the State of Haryana by an excise licensee". Thus, any sale made after the initial purchase by the licensee would not be the first sale in the State of Haryana. Thus, when an L-1 licensee sells the goods to an L-2 licensee or an L-2 licensee sells the goods in retail out of the stocks existing on the midnight of June 25, 2001 on any subsequent date, viz., June 26, 2001 or thereafter, the sale shall not be the first sale. It shall be a second or a subsequent sale. The tax being leviable only on the first sale in the State of Haryana from June 26, 2001, the sale of stocks existing on the mid-night of June 25, 2001 shall not attract the levy of sales tax. 21.. A fact which deserves menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
