KENAPO TEXTILES PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are carrying on the business of job-work of grey cloth supplied by customers which, after processing into fine cloth, bleaching and printing, is returned to the owners of grey cloth. They also purchase grey cloth and after processing it into fine cloth, bleaching and printing, sell the same. Until April 17, 1984, the material used for job-work, that is, processing, bleaching and printing, was not liable to sales tax but from April 18, 1984, due to certain constitutional amendments and the amendments carried out by the State of Haryana in the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the material used in the job-work became liable to sales tax with effect from April 1, 1987. The vires of the amended provisions of the Act have been upheld by the Supreme Court in Builders Association of India v. Union of India [1989] 73 STC 370. Accordingly, we are not concerned with the vires in this case.

(2.) THE Excise and Taxation Officer, Faridabad, who is the Assessing Authority, took up the case for assessment of sales tax in respect of the two petitioners with effect from April 1, 1987, the date from which the provisions of the Act were made applicable. While proceedings were pending before the aforesaid officer, Shri M. S. Hooda, Excise and Taxation Officer, was designated as Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority (AES) for the entire State of Haryana, including Faridabad. (AES stands for Anti Evasion Squad ). Shri M. S. Hooda also issued notices, annexures P. 1 and P. 2, to the petitioners to frame assessment against them. In their replies contained in annexures P. 3 and P. 4, they challenged his jurisdiction on various grounds. Now, notices, annexures P. 1 and P. 2, have been challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) A similar notification issued under the Punjab Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Devi Dass Gopal Krishan v. State of Punjab [1973] 31 STC 536 and the validity thereof was upheld by this Court.