9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red dealers are includable in notional tax liability of a "unit" as defined in rule 28A(2)(n) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for brevity, "the Rules"). Facts Brief facts of the cases are that the dealer-petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for brevity, "the Act") and engaged in the business of cotton ginning at Hisar in the State of Haryana. It manufactures rui (cotton) from kapas/narma (unginned cotton). The unit of the dealer-petitioner is exempted from payment of tax under section 13B of the Act read with rule 28A of the Rules. On September 12, 1995, an exemption/entitlement certificate was issued in favour of the dealer-petitioner for the period from December 9, 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in view of provisions of first proviso to rule 28A(4) of the Rules, which provides for calculation of notional sales tax liability on the "gross turnover" of the dealer. The dealer-petitioner took the plea before the revisional authority-respondent No. 3 that deductions admissible to it cannot be taken away under section 27 of the Act and it is entitled to such deduction in view of circulars dated February 20, 1992 and May 19, 1994 (P1 and P2). It is pertinent to notice that the Excise and Taxation Commissioner issued the aforementioned circulars clarifying that notional sales tax liability would not be calculated in regard to the sales made to registered dealers in case form ST XV is produced by the exempted unit. Disagreeing with the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissed, vide order dated May 26, 2005 (P11). Contentions Mr. Sandeep Goyal, learned counsel for the dealer-petitioner, has submitted that the issue raised in the instant petition is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by a judgment of the honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana v. Liberty Enterprises [2009] 22 VST 1 (Civil Appeal No. 1618 of 2009, decided on March 17, 2009). According to the learned counsel the only difference between the facts of the present case and the one decided by the honourable Supreme Court is that in the instant petition the question with regard to the sales made to the registered dealers against form ST XV is involved as against the export sales which was involved in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court rendered in the case of Liberty Enterprises [2009] 22 VST 1 because such sales are entirely different than the export sales. She has submitted that sale of goods to dealers are not exempted from tax and such sales are only deferment of realisation of tax, which eventually has to be paid by the registered dealer. She also attempted to resurrect same argument which did not find favour before the honourable Supreme Court and has placed reliance to proviso (1) of rule 28A(4). After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their assistance, we have reached the conclusion that this petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court rendered in Liberty Enterprises case [2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
