IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.1819 of 1991 Date of decision: 6.7.2010 M/s New Bharat Brick Kiln Co. -----Petitioner Vs. The State of Haryana and another ----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ritu Bahri, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of notice Annexure P.4 dated 9.1.1991 requiring the petitioner to pay lump sum tax in accordance with Rule 39-A(8) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short, ‘the Rules’). Under the said rule, every brick kiln owner is required to pay lump sum in lieu of sales tax for sale of bricks. 2. Grievance in the petition is that the rule will apply only if a registered dealer carried on business during the said period. The petitioner had suspended its business with effect from 1.1.1989 to 5.1.1991, while demand in the notice is for the period from 1.4.1990 to 30.9.1990. Case of the petitioner is that during this period, it was not carrying on its business as it had suspended its business for the period from 1.1.1989 to 5.1.1991. This stand of the petitioner has not been disputed on behalf of the respondents. CWP No.1819 of 1991 3. On 14.8.1991, this petition was ordered to come up alongwith CWP No.15643 of 1990 which also involved the same issue. Learned counsel for the parties point out that the said petition already stands decided on August 20, 1991, in Mini Gupta Bricks Company v. State of Haryana and another, (1993) 89 STC 263, holding that in accordance with Section 26 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, ‘the Act’), there could be no requirement to pay any lump sum when business was not being carried on. 4. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not carrying on its business from 1.1.1989 to January 1991, it is clear that it is not liable to pay lump sum tax for the period mentioned in the notice Annexure P.4. For the period the petitioner worked, the respondents will be at liberty to collect tax. 5. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge July 6, 2010 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 2