In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 14567 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 19, 2009 M/s Zimidara Agro Mills …Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. 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 C.W.P. No. 14567, 14572 and 14588 of 2008 as common question of law and facts are involved. These petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges various orders passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) upholding the demand of purchase tax at the rate of 4%, which the shelling units belonging to the petitioners were liable to pay as purchase tax. CWP No. 14567 of 2008 The matter is no longer res integra. A bunch of 20 petitions including CWP No. 15133 of 2006 (M/s Aggarwal Rice & General Mills v. The State of Haryana and others), wherein similar issues as raised in the instant petitions, came up for our consideration on 14.1.2009. After dealing with various provisions of the Haryana Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1985; the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973; the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975; & the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and considering the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536; Hotel Balaji v. State of A.P., 1993 Supp (4) SCC 536; & Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1990) 2 SCC 71 and Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Des Raj Pushap Kumar Gulati v. State of Punjab, [1985] 58 STC 393 (P&H), we have answered the question of liability of payment of purchase tax in favour of the revenue and against the petitioners and dismissed the bunch of aforementioned petition vide detailed judgment dated 14.1.2009. The instant petitions are also squarely covered by our judgment dated 14.1.2009 (supra). Therefore, following the same reasoning, these petitions are also dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) January 19, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2