HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions challenge the constitutionality of Maharashtra Ordinance No. 9 of 1989, and the Maharashtra Act No. 2 of 1990 which replaced it. They have been heard and can be disposed of together.

(2.) THE petitioners in each writ petition manufacture, inter alia, vanaspati in the State of maharashtra and, for the purpose, purchase vegetable non-esestial oil within the State. They despatch and sell vanaspati, inter alia, outside the State.

(3.) MAHARASHTRA Act No. 28 of 1982 introduced with effect from July 1, 1982 section 13aa into the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ("the said Act" ). The provision, which we shall call "the old section 13aa", purported to levy an additional purchase tax on goods specified in Part I of schedule C of the said Act when the dealer who purchased them used such goods in the manufacture of taxable goods and despatched the same outside the State. The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the old section 13aa by writ petitions filed in this Court. These writ petitions were dismissed (Wipro Products Limited v. State of Maharashtra [1989] 72 stc 69 ). The petitioners preferred appeals to the Supreme Court. Special leave to appeal was granted. Stay of recovery of penalty was ordered by the Supreme Court at the interim stage. It was stated also that if the petitioners succeeded in the appeals the amount of the additional purchase tax and interest recovered from them would be refunded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The appeals were allowed on October 19, 1989 ([1990] 76 STC 71 ). Before refunds as ordered were made, Maharashtra Ordinance No. 9 of 1989 introduced a new section 13aa into the said Act effective from July 1, 1982. The said Ordinance also sought to validate recoveries made in pursuance of the old section 13aa. These petitions were filed to challenge the said Ordinance and were amended to challenge Maharashtra Act No. 2 of 1990, which replaced it. At the interim stage (See [1990] 78 STC 114.) of the writ petitions the validating provision was stayed, refund as ordered by the Supreme Court was directed and the petitioners were given liberty to pay tax under the new section 13aa under protest, such payments to be subject to the outcome of the petitions and refundable with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in the event of the petitioners succeeding in the petitions. The respondents filed appeals against the interim orders. The Division Bench that heard the appeals directed that the writ petitions them selves should be heard and disposed of very expeditiously by a Division Bench. Accordingly, a Division Bench has heard the writ petitions.