GOODYEAR INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision in these appeals is whether the sales tax authorities can raise demands on the assessee on the basis of reassessment orders when the original assessment orders for the same assessment years and for the same turnover have been held to be valid. The facts relevant for the appeals are:

(2.) The assessing authority under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') passed assessment orders levying on the appellant purchase tax under Section 9 of the Act for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1977-78 on the dispatches made by the appellant of its manufactured goods to various depots outside the State. The assessment orders were made between the year 1979 and 1981.

(3.) The assessment orders were made under Section 9 of the Act read with a notification dated 19th July, 1974. Section 9 of the Act provided that where a dealer purchased goods within the State and used them in the manufacture of other goods which were then exported from the State otherwise than by way of inter-State sale, in circumstances in which no tax was payable under the provisions of the Act, there would be levied a tax on purchase of such goods at such rate as may be notified under Section 15. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 and sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, a notification dated 19th July, 1974 was issued prescribing the rate of purchase tax. The assessment orders and also the constitutional validity of the notification dated 19th July, 1974 were challenged by the appellant in several writ petitions filed in the High Court. The writ petitions in respect of assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 were allowed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by judgment dated 4th December, 1982 reported in Goodyear India Ltd. vs. The State of Haryana (1983) 53 STC 163. The High Court held the impugned notification to be ultra vires. As a consequence of the quashing of the notification, the assessment orders were also set aside. The High Court, however, observed that the judgment will not preclude the assessing authority to pass orders of reassessment ignoring altogether the provisions of the impugned notification. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus: