9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l rate for the period before March 25, 1997? Held that:- The Tribunal was right in allowing the appeal of the respondentdealer. We accordingly answer question No. 1 against the petitioner-State of Haryana and in favour of the respondent-dealer. Adverting to the second question, in view of answer to question No. 1 in favour of the assessee-dealer, question No. 2 does not survive. Accordingly, the reference is answered against the State of Haryana and in favour of the assessee. - GSTR No. 6 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 9-9-2010 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. JUDGMENT The Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short, the Tribunal ) has referred the following two questions for determination by this court under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 147 to Government Departments against certificates in form D. The amount of sales was assessed by the assessing authority vide order dated September 4, 1997 by taking NSTL to be ₹ 49,198, i.e., at the usual rate of sales tax of 4.4 per cent applicable on the sale of goods made to the Government Departments against form D. Similarly, in respect of the year 1996-97, the assessing authority assessed sales of ₹ 46,93,017 made to Government Departments against certificate in form D with NSTL of ₹ 1,87,721. As per the respondent, the cumulative NSTL for the year under reference even after addition of NSTL of the two years, 1995-96 and 1996-97 remained below the ceiling of ₹ 4,42,500 as permissible under the exemption certi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that the sales made to the Government Department was liable at the maximum rate of sales tax, which was applicable on the goods sold to the Government Departments by the dealer-assessee, for the purpose of NSTL, as envisaged under clause (n) to sub-rule (2) of rule 28A of the Rules. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been stoutly opposed by the assessee-dealer who placed reliance on various judgments of this court, namely, Kagaz Print-N-Pack (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana [2007] 5 VST 26 (P H), Jai Durga Cotton Mills, Hisar v. State of Haryana [2010] 29 VST 617 (P H); [2010] 36 PHT 571, Mohit Cotton Oils Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana [2009] 34 PHT 392 (P H), and of the apex court in State of Haryana v. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose and object with which the provisions for exemption have been added in the statute is that exemption is granted of the tax which is payable as per the provisions of the Act, as that can be considered to be the real incentive in the competitive market and not that tax is first calculated on the transactions on which no tax as such is leviable/payable under the Act and then grant exemption thereof. Therefore, the turnover on which notional tax liability is to be calculated for the purpose of deduction thereof out of the quantum of benefit of exemption being claimed by a dealer under rule 28A of the Rules does not include export sales. The aforesaid view stands approved by the apex court in Liberty Enterprises' case [2009] 22 V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
