FACTS:
The appellant is a registered dealer under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and was engaged in the business of purchase and dehusking of paddy to produce rice, in the State of Haryana. Rice so produced was exported outside the country within the meaning of Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The present appeal relates to the assessment year 1990-91. The turnover of the paddy purchased by the dealer during the relevant year was subjected to purchase tax under Sections 6 and 15-A of the Act vide assessment orders dated 14th January, 1997 and 9th July, 1999.
Aggrieved by the said levy, the dealer filed a writ petition before the High Court, challenging, inter alia, the substitution of Section 15-A in the Act vide Act 9 of 1993, with retrospective effect. However, the writ petition was dismissed primarily on the ground of laches. Hence, the present appeal was filed by the dealer.
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION:
This special leave appeal was directed against the judgment delivered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, questioning the Constitutional validity of Haryana General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1993, substituting Section 15-A in the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 retrospectively w.e.f. 27th May, 1971, had been dismissed.
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT:
The Counsel for the appellant argued that the Hon’ble Court did not consider the effect of the Haryana General Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Ordinance No. 2 of 1990 which had deleted Section 9 of the Act with effect from 15th October, 1990. Learned counsel also submitted that in light of the decisions of this Court, it is settled that the date of commencement of an Act which is preceded by an ordinance, is the date of promulgation of the ordinance.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT:
Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that since the provisions of Ordinance No. 2 of 1990 were incorporated in the Haryana General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act No.4 of 1991, the amendment was effective from the date of the ordinance i.e 15th October, 1990. It was also put forth that if at all the dealer was eligible for the benefit of the exemptions under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act, it would only be for a part of the year and not for the whole of the assessment year, as initially claimed. It was further asserted that dealer’s challenge to the levy of purchase tax cannot survive after this Court had upheld the validity of Section 15-A of the Act in the case of Satnam Overseas (Export).
HELD:
The Hon’ble Court, in light of the foregoing discussion, allowed the appeal partly to the extent that the dealer will not be liable to pay purchase tax on the purchase of paddy made by them upto 15th October, 1990, i.e. till the date of promulgation of Ordinance No.2 of 1990.
It was stated that the question relating to the constitutional validity of the retrospective substitution of Section 15-A in the Act w.e.f. 27th May, 1971 is no more res integra, in light of the decision of this Court in Satnam Overseas (Export), wherein this Court, upheld the constitutionality of Act 9 of 1993. The Court held that the exemptions mentioned in Section 9(1)(b) of the Act would be available to the dealer for assessment years ending before 1st April, 1991, and the substituted Section 15-A, which provides that purchase tax payable on paddy used as raw material can neither be refunded nor adjusted, will not have any effect between 27th May, 1971 and 1st April, 1991 as Section 9(1)(b) still existed in the statute book during that period. It was further evident that in Satnam Overseas (Export), this Court did not examine the effect of Ordinance No.2 of 1990, as Section 9 was first deleted vide the said Ordinance w.e.f. 15 th October, 1990.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS