RAMESHWAR DASS ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of two connected General Sales Tax References Nos. 3 and 4 of 1969, made by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, under Section 22 (1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (Punjab Act No. 46 of 1948), as applicable to the State of Haryana, and referred to hereinafter as the Act. The common question of law referred to in both the references is as under : Whether on the facts arid circumstances of this case, the appellant-firm M/s. Rameshwar Dass Ashok Kumar is entitled to deductions under Section 5 (2) (a) (ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, on account of sales made to M/s. Sardar Singh Kamal Chand of Panipat after the registration certificate of the latter had been cancelled by the competent authority under Section 7 (4) of the said Act even when this cancellation was not published in the Official Gazette as required under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules, 1949.

(2.) THE firm, M/s. Rameshwar Dass Ashok Kumar, is a dealer in vegetable ghee registered under the Act. Quarterly returns for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 were submitted by the assessee to the Assessing Authority, Gurgaon. The assessee claimed deductions under Section 5 (2) (a) (ii) for sales to the tune of Rs. 1,71,713. 35 to M/s. Sardar Singh Kamal Chand of Panipat, during the year 1962-63, and Rs. 1,11,102. 33 to the same firm during the year 1963-64, on the ground that the latter firm was a registered dealer. It appears that the registration certificate of the purchasing firm had been cancelled by the competent authority under Section 7 (4) by an order dated 31st March, 1962, before the sales were effected. The cancellation had, however, not been published in the Official Gazette, as said to be required under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Rules, 1949. Rule 12 was amended in the year 1966. The relevant portion of this rule, as it stood before the amendment and during the assessment years in question, reads as under:

(3.) THE assessing authority created additional demands for the two assessment years in question and appeals by the assessee to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner met with no success. Two separate revisions were filed before the Excise and Taxation Commissioner but they too failed. The matter was then taken in further appeals to the Sales Tax Tribunal, who also dismissed them. Applications were then made to the Tribunal under Section 22 (1) for referring the questions of law stated therein. There were three questions stated in the applications but the Tribunal referred the one stated above.