IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH G.S.T.R. No.14 of 1992 Date of decision:09.01.2009 M/s Kashmir Chand Amir Chand, Jalandhar ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA Present: None. 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. At the instance of the dealer, the Tribunal has allowed an application filed under Section 21(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and has referred the following three questions of law for adjudication of this Court which emerges from order dated 31.05.1991 passed by the Tribunal in Revision No.36 of 1990-91 for the assessment year 1977-78 :- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in interfering sale of Bardana on conjectural basis of having implied contract of sale thereof without any material whatsoever? 2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in over looking its own finding in appeal No.42 of 1985-86 and deciding the same set of facts again and taking contrary views than in appeal No.42 of 1985-86? G.S.T.R. No.14 of 1992 - 2 - 3. Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in ignoring the law laid down by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Food Corp. of India V/s State of Punjab and others 66-STC- 7? A perusal of the paper book shows that the Revisional Authority vide its order dated 28.10.1986 had created an additional demand of Rs.3734.94 paise by taxing sale of bardana worth Rs.61,029/- sold along with tax free sugar and salt. The aforesaid order of the Revisional Authority was upheld by the Tribunal vide its order dated 31.05.1991. Looking at the paltry sum of Rs.3734.94 paise involved in the present adjudication as is evident from order dated 16.08.1990 passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jalandhar-II, we are not inclined to answer the question. The parties are even otherwise litigating since 1979 and a period of 20 years have passed. It was in these circumstances that the Full Bench of this Court has laid down that the questions involving paltry sum may not be answered. The principles were laid down in the case of Commissionerof Income Tax v. Smt. Aruna Luthra, (2001) 252 ITR 76. Accordingly, we prefer to refrain from interfering in the order passed by the Tribunal and return the questions unanswered. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S.BHALLA) JUDGE 09.01.2009 sanjeev