IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 18073 of 2004 Date of Decision: August 13, 2009 Laxmi Rice Mills …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Ms. Manpreet Kaur, 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 petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges vires of the Haryana General Sales Tax (Amendment Act), 2003 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). A further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to adjust an amount of Rs. 4 lacs, which is stated to have been deposited by the petitioner as Purchase Tax for the period 1998-99. At the outset it is apposite to mention that on 22.11.2004, a Division Bench of this Court admitted the instant petition to D.B. and it was to be heard along with C.W.P. No. 18485 of 2003 (M/s United Riceland Pvt. Ltd. And another v. State of Haryana and others). It is also conceded position that in CWP No. 18485 of 2003 (supra) the provisions of the Act were subject CWP No. 18073 of 2004 matter of challenge. CWP No. 18485 of 2003 (supra) and two other connected petitions, namely, CWP Nos. 20381 of 2003 and 725 of 2004 have already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.12.2004. The Division Bench after discussing the factual and legal position of law in detail, allowed the aforementioned writ petitions and declared the Act ultra vires to the legislative power of the State. The corresponding amendment made in the Haryana Value Added Tax (Amendment Act, 2004, vide notification dated 5.3.2004, was also declared ultra vires to the legislative power of the State to the extent of levy of purchase tax for the period ending up to 31.3.1991. The demand notices issued by the respondents in furtherance of the aforesaid Amending Acts were also quashed. The respondent State was further directed to take appropriate legal measures in the matter of refund of purchase tax levied and collected for the period before 1.4.1991. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance we find that the issues raised in the instant petition have already been determined by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s United Riceland Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Ms. Ritu Bahri, learned State counsel has also not been able to seriously dispute the aforesaid position. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of M/s United Riceland Pvt. Ltd. (supra). (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) August 13, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2