IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH S.T.C. No. 2 of 1996 DATE OF DECISION: March 19, 2009 Food Corporation of India …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Kashmiri Lal Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent. 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. The dealer-FCI has filed the instant petition under Section 22(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) for issuance of direction to the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), to state the case and refer the questions of law emerging from order dated 28.4.1994 (P-5), passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 213 of 1986-87, in respect of the assessment year 1983-84. S.T.C. No. 2 of 1996 The dealer-FCI has earlier filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 22(1) of the Act for drawing a statement of the case and referring questions of law for adjudication of this Court, which has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.2.1996 (P-6). The dealer-FCI has sought to raise the following questions of law for determination by this Court: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the lad laid down in 38-STC-144 and 66- STC-7 applied? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the transactions of foodgrains by the FCI were liable to tax or not, in view of the law laid down by the High Court in 38-STC-144 and 66- STC-7? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, all the incidental charges, incurred by the FCI after acquisition of the foodgrains, from the seller, form a part of the taxable purchase turn over?” By a separate detailed order of even date passed in G.S.T.R. No. 14 of 1990, the aforementioned questions of law stand answered. Accordingly, this case has been rendered infructuous as no question requiring adjudication would survive after having been answered in G.S.T.R. No. 14 of 1990. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 2 S.T.C. No. 2 of 1996 (H.S. BHALLA) March 19, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3