GSTR 14 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. GSTR No. 14 of 2003 Date of decision 21.1.2009 G.V.Rice Unit ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. AvneeshJhingan, ,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.R.D.Sharma, DAG Hy. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') has accepted the petition filed under Section 42(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax, 1973 (for brevity 'the Act') preferred by the dealer with a prayer for referring questions of law to this Court for adjudication. The dealer is engaged in the manufacture and export of rice. During the assessment year in question the dealer exported rice. He filed his return for the quarter ending June, 1996 and paid tax according to the return on 14.6.1996. He deposited additional tax of Rs.1,05,915/- on 27.9.1996 within one month of the service of demand notice. Section 15 C of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for brevity 'the Central Act') was amended by Act No. 2 of 1996 and the purchase of paddy was not leviable if the rice shelled from it has been exported. As per the assertion of the dealer, tax could not be levied in pursuance of Section 47 of the Act. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal referred the following three questions for GSTR 14 of 2003 2 adjudication of this Court: “i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the orders passed by the authorities below are perverse being contrary to the facts and evidence on record ? ii)Whether in terms of the provisions of section 47 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act,1973 penalty could possibly be levied if the tax had been paid according to the returns filed? Iii)Whether this case can be treated as one falling within the ambit of section 48 of the Act and the penalty according attained in terms thereof by the taxing authorities, if so whether the dealer would be required to be heard thereon?” Shri Avneesh Jhinjan, learned counsel for the dealer has at the outset submitted that question no.2 which is pivotal question stand already answered in the case of M/s Jagdamba Foods Limited, Karnal v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 12366 of 2004 decided on 11.10.2004). The Division Bench after referring to the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, Sections 5,14 and 15 of the Central Act and various judgements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court including the Full Bench judgement of this Court in the case of United Riceland Limited v. State of Haryana 1995(104) STC 362 has held that the dealer was duty bound to pay tax before filing the return. The issue has been concluded in para 19 of the judgement which reads thus: “ The question whether the tax was due on the paddy purchased by the petitioner which was utilised for manufacturing the rice was not debatable in view of the plain language of the relevant provisions of the State Act and in any case, the same was unequivocally answered in the affirmative by the Full Bench in GSTR 14 of 2003 3 the case of M/s United Riceland limited v. State of Haryana (1995) 6 PHT 275 which was decided on 17.8.1995. The Full Bench repelled the challenge to Section 15 A of the State Act and held that the purchase tax was payable on the paddy utilised for manufacturing the rice. In Satnam Overseas (Export) through its partners and others v. State of Haryana (2002) 20 PHT 442(SC) their Lordships of the Supreme Court partially reversed the judgement of the Full Bench of this court, but made it clear that in terms of Section 9(1)(b) of the State Act, the assessee will not be liable to pay tax in the assessment years ending before 1.4.1991. It is, thus, clear that the Supreme Court had approved the view taken by the Full Bench that purchase tax was payable on the paddy purchased by the dealer on or after 1.4.1999. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the justification offered by the petitioner for not paying tax due before filing the return for the quarter ending on 30.6.1996.” Once the pivotal question has been answered against the assessee the answer to question nos. 1 and 3 would be rendered infructuous and we order accordingly. As a sequel to the afore-mentioned discussion, the reference is disposed of. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (H.S. Bhalla ) 21.1.2009 Judge okg