Civil Writ Petition No.13584 of 1990 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13584 of 1990 Date of decision: 25.4.2011 M/s Gobind Ram Vishan Dass, Nilokheri and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents and other connected petitions being Civil Writ Petitions No. 3774, 5959, 6665, 8472, 8660, 8981, 8982, 8983, 13413, 13417,13585, 13586, 13587, 13588 and 13751 of 1990. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Viond S.Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No.3774, 5959, 6665, 8472, 8660, 8981, 8982, 8983, 13413, 13417, 13584,13585, 13586, 13587, 13588 and 13751 of 1990 as it is stated by learned counsel for the parties that issues involved in all these petitions are common. 2. In Civil Writ Petition No.13584 of 1990 challenge is to the assessment of tax under the provisions of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 on purchase of paddy utilised in the manufacture of rice exported out of India. Challenge is also made to the provisions of Sections 2(p),6,17 and 14 of the Act No.1 of 1990 mainly on the ground that no tax could be levied on purchase of paddy when rice was to be sold in the course of Civil Writ Petition No.13584 of 1990 -2- *** export. The stand of the State is that paddy was a separate item and could be subjected to tax irrespective of rice being exported. 3. It is not disputed on behalf of the petitioners that the stand of the State has since been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satnam Overseas (Export) & ors Vs. State of Haryana and another (2002) 20 PHT 442 (SC). However, it is submitted that in the later judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Riceland Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and another (2011) 38 PHT 153 (SC) decided on 7.1.2011 it has been explained that in view of Section 9(1)(b) of the Act which continued in operation upto 15.10.1990, no tax was leviable on purchase of paddy used in the manufacture of rice for export upto that date. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of judgment in United Riceland Ltd., the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that upto 15th October, 1990 there will be no liability for purchase tax on paddy. In United Riceland Ltd. it was observed:- “Examined on the touch-stone of the afore-noted legal principles, it is manifest that Section 9 ceased to exist in the statute book from the date of promulgation of the ordinance i.e. 15th October, 1990; particularly, when there was nothing in the Act Noi.4 of 1991 rendering the provisions of the ordinance otiose during the period from 15th October, 1990to 15th April, 1991. Therefore, it follows that the benefit of the exemption contained in Section 9(1)(b) of the Act was available to the dealer only upto 15rh October, 1990; and not till Ist April, 1991, as elucidated in Satnam Overseas (Exports) (Supra).” 4. In view of above, these writ petitions are disposed of with the observation that the petitioners will be entitled to benefit in terms of Civil Writ Petition No.13584 of 1990 -3- *** judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Riceland Ltd.The assessing authority may pass a fresh order and take further action in accordance with law on this aspect. The interim order granted by this Court on 29.10.1990 shall stand vacated. 5. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each of the connected cases. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge April 25, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge