IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH S.T.C. No. 1 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: May 14, 2009 M/s Skol Breweries Ltd. …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ritu Bahri, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of STC Nos. 1 of 2009 and 8 to 14 of 2008 as common questions of law and facts are involved. The dealer-petitioner has filed these petitions under Section 42(2) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) for issuance of direction to the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) to state the case and refer the questions of law S.T.C. No. 1 of 2009 emerging from orders dated 24.4.2002 and 10.3.2006 passed by the Tribunal in STA Nos. 319, 320, 321, 501, 659, 660 & 661 of 2000-01 and 760 of 2003-04, in respect of assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1998-99. The dealer-petitioner has earlier filed applications before the Tribunal under Section 42(1) of the Act for referring questions of law for adjudication of this Court. However, the Tribunal rejected those applications vide orders dated 24.9.2007 and 7.2.2008. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper books with their able assistance. Without going into details of factual and legal aspects, we are of the view that interpretation of the statute is involved and there is no decision on the issues raised before this Court. It is well settled that if interpretation of statute is involved then question of law would emerge and the Tribunal should not have declined the reference. In that regard we place reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mittal Pipe Manufacturing Company v. State of Haryana, (1987) 66 STC 202. Moreover, the questions raised in these petitions are likely to arise in a number of cases and, therefore, it would be just and appropriate to direct the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law for determination of this Court after drawing statement of facts:- 1) Whether the Tribunal is justified to hold that beer (IMFL) is an item covered by Entry 24A of 2 S.T.C. No. 1 of 2009 Schedule ‘B’ of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973? 2) Whether the Tribunal is justified to uphold the action of the Revisional Authority not to allow set off under Section 15A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, on the ground that the said item is covered by Entry 24A of Schedule ‘B’ and raising the demand against the dealer? These petitions stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) May 14, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3