GSTR No.3 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH GSTR No.3 of 1998 DATE OF DECISION: March 15, 2010 M/S THE MANSA CO-OP. SPINNING MILLS LTD., ...PETITIONER MANSA VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. PRESENT: MR. K.L. GOYAL, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. SANDEEP GOYAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. PIYUSH KANT JAIN, ADDL.A.G., PUNJAB. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab vide its order dated 22.4.1997, has referred the following questions of law for adjudication by this Court:- “(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified to hold that the Notification No.50/PA.45/48/S.S./82 dated 19.8.82 is not applicable for the purchase of cotton made by textile mills after 1.12.82, even if the Mills started the production after 1.12.82? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified to hold that penalty under Section 10(6) is leviable in this case when the tax has been paid in full according to returns filed by the Assessee? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is justified to hold that penalty under section 10(6) is leviable in the case, when the GSTR No.3 of 1998 -2- assessee was under bonafide belief that tax has been paid according to law? (iv) Whether the interest levied under section 11-D has been rightly upheld, despite ruling given by the Apex Court in the case M/s J.K. Synthetic Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (94-STC-422)?” Mr. K.L. Goyal, learned Sr. Advocate submits that question No.1 has already been answered in STC No.10 of 1991/GSTR No.15 of 2006, decided on 20.9.2006, contested by the same parties, although the same relates to different assessment years. In view of the above, question No.1 is answered in the same terms as in STC No.10 of 1991/GSTR No.15 of 2006, decided on 20.9.2006. As far as questions No.2 and 3 are concerned, these very questions stand answered in STC No.9 of 1991, decided on 20.12.2005, which again was between the same assessee and the respondent and hence question No.2 is answered in favour of the assessee and question No.3 has been rendered academic, in terms of the judgement in STC No.9 of 1991. As the demand against the assessee has been set aside, therefore, the question of payment of interest would not arise and hence, question No.4 is also decided in favour of the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE March 15, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) Gulati JUDGE