G.S.T.R No.8 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH G.S.T.R No. 8 of 2003 Date of Decision: March 17,2009 Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh ..Petitioner Versus M/s S.K.& Co.P. Ltd., Faridabad ..Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioner. 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? H.S.BHALLA, J. Feeling aggrieved against order dated 4.12.2002 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, Chandigarh (for brevity “ `the Tribunal') whereby application moved under Section 42 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 ( for brevity, `the Act') by the State of Haryana for referring the questions of law arising out of the impugned order dated 22.8.2002 passed by the Tribunal in STA No.189 of 2002-03 was declined, the revenue approached this court for the determination of the following questions of law : “ 1) Whether, on a true and proper interpretation of entry G.S.T.R No.8 of 2003 2 35-B of notification No. SO 46/H.A. 20/73/S.15/96 dated 31.3.96, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding the HDPE and LDPE granules manufactured and sold by the respondent are plastic goods falling under the said entry; 2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in relying upon the clarification dated 20.1.1993, Annexure P-4 to entry 35B of notification No. SO 46/H.A. 20/73/S.15/96 dated 31.3.96? The basic issue involved in this case is – whether the product plastic granules are covered by Entry 35 B of the notification issued under section 15 of the HGST Act, 1973? We have heard learned State counsel and perused the record with his assistance meticulously. A perusal of the record clearly spells out that as per letter issued by the ETC, Haryana, Chandigarh on 20.1.1993 while dealing with the subject on consumer plastic goods, it has been clarified that High Density Polythylene (HDPE) or Low Density Polythylene (LDPE) etc. are plastic materials and by referring to this, learned counsel appearing for the revenue-State submitted that since this clarification was issued before Entry 35-B was brought on the statute and therefore the same was not applicable to the present case. But this contention of the learned State counsel is not liable to be accepted. Rather it clearly clarifies that HDPE and LDPE are plastic materials. It is not the contention of the revenue that LDPE and HDPE granules are not a finished product and if these are finished products, they are obviously made of plastic and hence are necessarily plastic goods. The entry contained in Section 35-B clearly spells out that the G.S.T.R No.8 of 2003 3 entry takes within its ambit all types of goods which are made of plastic. It is not disputed that the HDPE and LDPE granules are finished product and are made of plastic. The only exception under this entry is that of high density propline ethyl woven bags. The entry reads as under:- “ 35B Plastic goods except HDPE woven bags.” On a true and proper interpretation of entry 35 B of the notification No. SO46/H.A.20/73/S.15/96 dated 31.3.1996, the tribunal was correct in law in holding the HDPE and LDPE granules manufactured and sold by the respondent are plastic goods falling under the said entry. Therefore, in the final analysis, the question of law raised in the instant case is decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. ( H.S.BHALLA ) JUDGE 17.3.2009 ( M.M.KUMAR ) VK JUDGE