MURLI MANOHAR AND CO Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals and writ petitions raise a common question regarding the interpretation of S. 9 (1 of theharyana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Counsel state that the facts in all these appeals are identical and that the only facts necessary (or, at least, on record before us) , on the basis of which the issue before us is to be decided, are these: Each of the appellants/petitioners (hereinafter referred to compendiously as 'assessees') , is a registered dealer in the State of Haryana. He purchased certain raw materials in the State without paying tax thereon, in view of the provision contained in S. 24 of the Act. He then manufactured certain goods in the State with the aid of said raw materials. He then sold the manufactured goods to dealers who, in turn, exported those goods out of India. On these facts, it is claimed, the assessee is not liable to pay the purchase tax on the raw materials imposed under S. 9 (1 of the Act. This claim has been rejected by the taxing authorities and the High court and hence these appeals. The writ petitions have been filed directly in this court in view of a learned Single Judge of the High court having decided the issue against the assessees as early as 25/11/1980 in C. W. P. No. 1227 of 1980, which was also affirmed by a division bench later.

(2.) The Act is a much-amended one and some of its provisions have been recently amended with retrospective effect from 27/05/1971, a point of time when actually a predecessor Act (the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 had been in force. The provisions of the statue, relevant for our purpose, and their relevant amendments may be noticed first:

(3.) Before turning to the question posed for our consideration, it is necessary to refer to S. 5 (1 of the central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This Ss. read as follows: