LAL CHAND TIMBER MERCHANTS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana (for short, "the Tribunal") constituted under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, "the State Act") could prescribe the requirement of filing of surety bond as a condition precedent to the hearing of appeal filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (I)-cum-Revisional Authority, Gurgaon, is the main issue which arises for consideration in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts relevant to the decision of this petition are that by an order dated June 10, 1994, the Assessing Authority held the petitioners liable to pay tax amounting to Rs. 153.87 under the State Act in relation to the assessment year 1991-92. By another order dated September 27, 1994, the Assessing Authority held the petitioners liable to pay tax amounting to Rs. 476.07 under the State Act and penalty amounting to Rs. 100 under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Section 48 of the State Act in relation to the assessment year 1990-91. The latter order was revised by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (I)-cum-Revisional Authority, Gurgaon (respondent No. 3) who held that the petitioners are liable to pay tax amounting to Rs, 56,553.20 with interest amounting to Rs. 47,261. The petitioners challenged the order dated December 21, 1995 passed by respondent No. 3 by filing an appeal under Section 39 of the State Act read with Rule 55 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975. Along with the appeal, an application under proviso to Section 39(5) was filed for entertaining the appeal without prior payment of the tax and interest. That application has been disposed of by the Tribunal with the direction that the appeal will be entertained subject to the filing of surety bond within one month.

(3.) Shri K.L. Goyal invited our attention to the order dated July 5, 2000 passed in C.W.P. No. 16396 of 1999--S.R. Udyog, Jagadhari v. State of HaryanaReported in [2001] 121 STC 541 (P&H). and submitted that in view of that decision, the direction given by the Tribunal for filing the surety bond may be declared illegal and the case may be remanded for fresh adjudication of the application filed by the petitioners under Section 39(5) of the Act. The learned Deputy Advocate-General agreed that to this extent, the case of the petitioners is similar to that of S.R. Udyog.