HIND IRON STORES Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of selling and supplying of iron and steel of all types and iron scraps at Mandi Gobindgarh, District Patiala. The firm is registered as a dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax. Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act), and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

(2.) F The petitioner-firm purchased two lots of cut up materials of condemned wagon, namely, scraps, amounting to Rs. 2,44,300 from Northern Railway Workshop, Jagadhri. The Assessing Authority, Yamuna Nagar, respondent No. 2, sent a notice in form S. T. XIV purported to have been issued under Section 4-B of the Act dated 20th July, 1971, to the petitioner by registered post to app ar before him at Yamuna Nagar on 3rd August, 1971, with complete account for the purchase of scrap. A copy of the notice is attached with the petition as annexure A-1. The petitioner's representative appeared before respondent No. 2 on 3rd August, 1971, and the petitioner was asked to deposit the tax at 3 per cent on all the iron scrap so purchased at Jagadhri. He also issued a memo for assessment refixing the case on 7th September, 1971. It is alleged in the petition that in the meantime, the Assessing Authority was transferred. The petitioner st ed taking delivery of the said scrap from the Railway Workshop, Jagadhri, for taking it to his place of business at Mandi Gobindgarh. Three trucks numbering HRA 5397, PNQ 3503 and HRK 3199 loaded with the aforesaid material were stopped at the check barrier G. T. Road, Ambala, and were made to pay Rs. 170, Rs. 180 and Rs. 185. Similarly, respondent No. 3 also realised a sum of Rs. 1,330 from the petitioner on the scrap transported to Mandi Gobindgarh after 3rd September, 1971, out of the aforesaid purchases. It is in these circumstances that the present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE constitutional validity of Section 4-B of the Act was challenged but both the learned counsel for the parties conceded that the same was held valid. Mr. Sahney, the learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the petitioner is not a "dealer" as defined in Section 2 (d) of the Act and he cannot be assessed and that no purchase tax could be levied on the petitioner under Section 4-B which itself is subjected to the second proviso to Section 5 (1) of the Act, because the petitioner is not selling any iron scrap which is categorised as declared goods under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and tax in respect of this declared goods could be levied only either on sales or purchases and that respondent No. 3 is not the Assessing Authority under the Act. Hence he had no jurisdiction to levy and collect the tax at the barrier.