G.S.T.R. No. 69 of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH G.S. T.R. No.69 of 1997 Date of Decision: 3.2.2009 M/s Hyderabad Industries Ltd., Faridabad ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA Present:- Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reports or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for determination of this court:- “ i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding as jointings fall within entry 25 (Asbestos sheets and fittings)? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case G.S.T.R. No. 69 of 1997 2 the approach of the Tribunal is sustainable in law by going to dictionary meaning and definition of fitting and ignoring the established law of common parlance affirmed in 74 STC 81, 84 STC 387 and 101 STC 536? iii) That the finding that the composition of Asbestos and jointings are the same is supported by any evidence on the record and thus perverse and not sustainable in facts and circumstances?.” The matter pertains to the assessment year 1988-89 (wrongly typed as 1989-90). At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee had pointed out that the revisional authority in respect of the subsequent assessment years, namely, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 has granted the benefit to the assessee by holding that the jointings would not fall within entry 25, which deals with asbestos sheets and fittings. The orders passed by the Tribunals in respect of the subsequent years have been reported as M/s Hyderabad Industries Limited., Faridabad Vs. State of Haryana, STI 2000 Punjab and Haryana (Tribunals) 333 and Hyderabad Industries Limited Vs. State of Haryana (2006) 27 PHT 39 (HTT). Learned counsel for the assessee has also submitted that the aforesaid orders are not being assailed by the revenue before this court. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, learned State counsel has not been able to controvert the aforesaid assertions made by the learned counsel for the assessee and in that situation, it has to be concluded that the jointings can not be regarded as a part of asbestos sheets and fittings, which is covered under entry 25. Accordingly, the questions of law raised by the assessee are liable to be answered in G.S.T.R. No. 69 of 1997 3 favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The reference is answered accordingly. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE 3.2.2009 ( H.S.BHALLA ) vk JUDGE