REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

HARYANA ORGANICS (A UNIT OF GLOBUS AGROMICS LIMITED) Appellant

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

AZAD TOBACCO FACTORY (P) LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. [REFERRED]
ASWINI KUMAR GHOSE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY CALCUTTA HIGH COURT INTERVENERS VS. ARABINDA BOSE [REFERRED]
T DEVADASAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND UNOTHER [REFERRED]
A V FERNANDEZ VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MYSORE TRAVANCORE COCHIN AND COORG BANGALORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE VS. INDO MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED PANGAL VITTAL NAYAK AND CO LIMITED [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX U P VS. MODI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. JULLUNDUR VEGETABLES SYNDICATE [REFERRED]
ABHOY PADA SAHA VS. SUDHIR KUMAR MODAL [REFERRED]
HANSRAJ GORDHANDAS VS. H H DAVE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS SURAT [REFERRED]
G NARAYANASWAMI VS. G PANNERSELVAM [REFERRED]
DWARKA PRASAD VS. DWARKA DAS SARAF [REFERRED]
S SUNDARAM PILLAI KOUSALAYA DEVT MURUGESA MUDALIAR N S DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL THAHIRA BEEVI M BALAKRISHNAN K R KRISHNAN VS. V R PATTABIRAMAN:P LAKSHMINARAYANA CHARYA:SELVARAJ CHETTIAR:B S RAMACHARI:R A MUTHIAH NADAR:FATHIMA BAI:P BHANUMATT [REFERRED]
MADHU GOPAL VS. VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [REFERRED]
TATA OIL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED]
SWADESHI POLYTEX LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED]
KIHOTO HOLLOHAN VS. ZACHILLHU [REFERRED]
BAJAJ TEMPO LIMITED BOMBAY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY CITY 111 BOMBAY [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES [REFERRED]
PARDEEP AGGARBATTI LUDHIANA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
FEDERATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED]
SHRIRAM VINYL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS MUMBAI [REFERRED]
I T C AGRO TECH LIMITED EIC VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [REFERRED]
BHARATHIDASAN UNIVESITY VS. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION [REFERRED]
BHARTI TELECOME LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [REFERRED]
GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF BOMBAY VS. HORMUSJI MANEKJI [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, I propose to dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos. 18240 of 1997 (Haryana Organics v. The State of Haryana etc.) and 3455 of 1998 (Frost Falcon Distilleries Limited v. The State of Haryana and Ors.), involving common questions of fact and law. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 18240 of 1997.

(2.) The only question for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner who is a manufacturer of Ethyl Alcohol falls under Item 10 of the negative list contained in the Haryana Government Notification dated 11.2.1994 (Annexure P-4/B) so as to dis-entitle it from claiming exemption from sales tax under Rule 28-A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short the Rules).

(3.) The undisputed facts are that the petitioner-company came into commercial production for manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol for the first time on 31.3.1994. It applied for Eligibility Certificate for exemption of Sales-tax on form ST-70 under Rule 28-A of the rules vide application dated 9/23.5.1994. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Panipat, rejected the claim vide letter dated 17.11.1994 (Annexure P-5) on the ground that the Unit fell within the scope of Entry 10 of the Notification dated 9.3.1992. The petitioner, thereupon, filed a reply dated 29.11.1994 explaining that it was manufacturing Ethanol or Ethyl Alcohol and thus did not fall under the aforesaid entry which merely covered units 'based' on such alcohol. The case was placed before the Higher Level Screening Committee for consideration. The Higher Level Screening Committee rejected it vide order dated 7.8.1996 in the following terms:-

Click here to view full judgment.

HARYANA ORGANICS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address