RAKESH RICE MILLS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders, annexures P4, P7 and P11 passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Assessing Authority, Fatehabad (hereinafter described as "the Assessing Authority"), the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Hissar (hereinafter described as "the appellate authority") and the Sales Tax Tribunal III, Haryana (for short, "the Tribunal"), respectively.

(2.) For the purpose of deciding the issue raised by the petitioner, it is sufficient to mention that the petitioner had challenged the order of the Assessing Authority by filing an appeal under Section 39(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, "the Act") along with an application under proviso to Section 39(5) for exemption from payment of tax, interest and penalty amounting to Rs. 80,916. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Hissar, rejected the application of the petitioner but the second appeal filed by it was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated March 25, 1997 (annexure P6) with the direction that the appeal be heard on merits subject to deposit of the 25 per cent of the tax demand and furnishing of surety bond for the balance demand to the satisfaction of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Hissar. The petitioner deposited the amount in terms of the said order. After hearing its representative, the appellate authority finally dismissed the appeal on August 1, 1997. The petitioner challenged that order by filing an appeal under Section 39(2) of the Act along with an application under proviso to Section 39(5) of the Act for grant of exemption from payment of tax, etc. This time, the Tribunal declined to entertain its prayer and vide order dated October 22, 1998 it directed the petitioner to deposit the disputed amount within 45 days. The petitioner sought review of that order by filing an application under Section 41 of the Act which was dismissed by the Tribunal on March 23, 1999.

(3.) The petitioner has sought invalidation of the impugned orders on the following grounds :