IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. G.S.T.R. No. 1 of 2002 Date of Decision: March 25, 2009 State of Haryana ...Petitioner Versus M/s Print-O-Pack, Faridabad ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Ms. Ritu Bahri, DAG, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate, for the respondent. 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 revenue an application under Section 42 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) was filed before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) and the same was allowed holding that the following question of law would arise for determination of this Court as it emerges from the order dated 4.2.2002 passed by the Tribunal:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, order of the Revisional Authority were without GSTR No. 1 of 2002 jurisdiction? It is appropriate to notice that the Tribunal in its order has taken the view that aluminum foil would be covered within the meaning of entry 13 of the notification dated 29.3.1996. Likewise, the word ‘sheet’ is covered under notification dated 25.11.1994 issued under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Tribunal as also come to the conclusion that the aluminum foil is nothing but an aluminum sheet. Therefore, the view taken by the revisional authority while exercising jurisdiction on the recommendation made by the Prohibition, Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, was set aside. The question whether the revisional authority could have exercised the jurisdiction does not need t be answered as the exercise has been rendered academic. The Tribunal has already set aside that order on merits. In another reference, namely, G.S.T.R. No. 5 of 2003 (State of Haryana v. M/s Print-O-Pack, Faridabad), decided by the order of even date, we have also answered the question whether aluminum foil is covered under the expression ‘sheet’ against the revenue. Accordingly, we refrain from answering the aforesaid question and leave it open to be decided in an appropriate matter. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) March 25, 2009 JUDGE 2 GSTR No. 1 of 2002 Pkapoor 3