In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 14670 of 2005 Date of Decision: January 20, 2009 Food Corporation of India …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA For the Petitioner: Mr. Devi Dayal Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. AG, Haryana 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 a bunch of 7 petitions2 because common questions of law and facts are involved. These petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges various assessment orders passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer- cum-Assessing Authority in the case of the assessee M/s Food Corporation of India, District Office Karnal, pertaining to assessment years 1990-1991, 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, Karnal, appellate orders passed by the CWP No. 14670 of 2005 Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Ambala-cum- Appellate Authority as well as common order dated 28.6.2005 by the Haryana Tax Tribunal (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The facts as gathered from the perusal of these petitions are that the Assessing Authority Karnal while framing assessments during the aforementioned assessment years levied tax upon the assessee-M/s Food Corporation of India, District Office, Karnal, on pre-paid incidental charges i.e. Dami, Dalali and labour charges. In respect of assessment year 1997-98 the Assessing Authority also levied tax on the bonus amount, which was paid to the farmers. Further tax was levied on the bardana supplied with the food grains, which was purchased by the assessee without payment of tax or on a concessional rate of tax from outside the State against ‘C’ forms. 3. The assessment orders passed by the Assessing Authority were challenged before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Ambala, who dismissed the appeals vide orders dated 11.3.2004 in respect of assessment year 1990-1991 and 20.5.2004 in respect of assessment years 1996-1997 to 2001-2002. Feeling aggrieved against the aforementioned orders, the assessee approached the Tribunal and in all 7 appeals were filed. All the appeals were clubbed together by the Tribunal and vide a common order dated 28.6.2005, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals. The aforementioned orders are subject matter of challenge in these petitions. 4. On 22.3.2007, while admitting these petitions, the Division Bench of this Court ordered for listing of these petitions 2 CWP No. 14670 of 2005 alongwith S.T.C. No. 28 of 2002 (Food Corporation of India v. State of Punjab). Somehow, the writ petitions could not be tagged alongwith S.T.C. No. 28 of 2002, which came up for final adjudication before the Division Bench on 2.5.2007 of which one of us (M.M. Kumar, J.) was a member. 5. It is apposite to mention here that in S.T.C. No. 28 of 2002 the Food Corporation of India has sought a direction to the Sales Tax Tribunal Punjab to draw a statement of the case and to refer the following questions of law:- “(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal and confirming the levy of interest, when the original demand itself was in dispute and under challenge; (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, any interest could be levied on the dealer when the original additional demand was already under challenge in appeal, and the appeal had not even been finally decided on merits; and c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, was it proper to hold that since the instructions under reference were not a part of the statute, therefore, the same could be treated to be without any authority of law?” 6. During the course of hearing of S.T.C. No. 28 of 2002, learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India confined its claim 3 CWP No. 14670 of 2005 only to waiver of interest in respect of two months namely February and March, 1972. He based his claim on a settlement deed dated 15.3.1979 executed between the Food Corporation of India and the respondent State of Punjab for the period February, 1972 to March, 1975. A copy of the settlement was also placed on record which stipulated that a sum of Rs. 8,58,63,041.03 being ad hoc assistance in lieu of the purchase/sales tax on rice/wheat withheld by the Food Corporation of India for the period from 2/72 to 3/75 was paid by the Government of India to the State of Punjab on the basis of reconciliation and in consultation with the Food and Supplies Department. A sum of Rs. 1,65,30,612.45 was also paid by the Food Corporation of India to the Excise and Taxation Department during the afore-mentioned period. The above said ad hoc payment was part of deal which the Government of India paid to the State Government in lieu of the amount withheld by the FCI as sales/purchase tax on procurement of paddy/wheat for the period in question. The aforementioned position in settlement was not successfully disputed by the learned State counsel. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench disposed of S.T.C. No. 28 of 2002 by holding that the Food Corporation of India shall be entitled to waiver of interest for a period of two months i.e. February and March, 1972. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and perusing the paper books with their able assistance, we are of the considered view that the controversy raised in these petitions is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment 4 CWP No. 14670 of 2005 passed by the Division Bench in S.T.C. No. 28 of 2002, decided on 2.5.2007. In view of above, we dispose of these petitions in terms of Division Bench judgment dated 2.5.207 passed in S.T.C. No. 28 of 2002 (supra). (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) January 20, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 5 2 1CWP No. 14670 of 2005Food Corporation of India v. State of Haryana and others2CWP No. 14671 of 2005Food Corporation of India v. State of Haryana and others3CWP No. 14672 of 2005Food Corporation of India v. State of Haryana and others4CWP No. 14673 of 2005Food Corporation of India v. State of Haryana and others5CWP No. 14674 of 2005Food Corporation of India v. State of Haryana and others6CWP No. 14692 of 2005Food Corporation of India v. State of Haryana and others7CWP No. 14693 of 2005Food Corporation of India v. State of Haryana and others