REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

UNITED RICELAND PVT LIMITED Appellant

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MURLI MANOHAR AND CO. V. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
POLAKI MOTORS V/S STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED]
UNITED RICELAND LIMITED,SAMANA BAHA,DISTRICT KARNAL V. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
STATE OF MYSORE VS. YADDALAM LAKSHMINARASIMHIAH SETTY AND SONS [REFERRED]
PRITHVI COTTON MILLS LIMITED VS. BROACH BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF CITY OF AHMEDABAD AYODAYA GNG AND MFG CO LIMITED VS. NEW SHROCK SPG AND WVG CO LTD [REFERRED]
KRISHNAMURTHI AND CO VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED]
HIRALAL RATTANLAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
STATE OF GUJARAT MATHURADAS MOHAN LAL KEDIA VS. RAMAN LAL KESHAV LAL SONI:SH S D MUNSHAW [REFERRED]
K C ARORA EX CAPT A S PARMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
D CAWASJI AND CO MYSORE VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED]
GOODYEAR INDIA LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA:GEDORE TOOLS P LTD [REFERRED]
HOTEL BALAJI VS. STATE OF ANDHARA PRADESH [REFERRED]
K B HANDICRAFTS EMPORIUM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
DEVI DASS GOPAL KRISHAN PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. TUSHAR RANJAN MOHANTY [REFERRED]
G C KANUNGO D C ROUTRAY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED]
S R BHAGWAT VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED]
SULTANA BEGUM VS. PREM CHAND JAIN [REFERRED]
EICHER MOTORS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
GOBIND SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
GOVERNMENT OF NADHRA PRADESH VS. G V K GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL [REFERRED]
SATNAM OVERSEAS EXPORT VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MANGALAM TIMBER PRODUCTS LIMITED [REFERRED]
SATICHIDANANDA MISHRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED]
TILOK CHAND PRASAN KUMAR VS. SALES TAX OFFICER HATHRAS DISTRICT ALIGARH [REFERRED]
BIRLA COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
BHARAT ENGINEERING CO VS. ASSESSING AUTHORITY [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions involve adjudication of the petitioners' challenge to the Haryana General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Haryana Act No. 4 of 2003, [2003] 132 STC Statutes 50) and the Haryana Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2004 (Haryana Act No. 4 of 2004, [2004] 136 STC Statutes 125). An ancillary question which would require determination by the Court is whether the petitioners are entitled to refund of the tax collected under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Haryana Sales Tax Act) on the paddy purchased up to March 31, 1991.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts from C.W.P. No. 18485 of 2003.

(3.) Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company engaged in the business of export of rice outside India. It purchases paddy from within the State of Haryana and after dehusking the same, exports rice to foreign countries. Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of petitioner No. 1. For the assessment year 1982-83 and onwards, the respondents levied purchase tax on the paddy purchased by petitioner No. 1. Similar imposition was made on other dealers engaged in the business of manufacture of rice out of paddy and export thereof. They challenged the levy of tax by filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They also challenged the vires of Section 15-A which was inserted by the Haryana General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1993 (Haryana Act No. 9 of 1993). A Full Bench of this Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 15-A and the levy of purchase tax on the paddy used for manufacturing rice which was exported out of the country--United Riceland Limited, Samana Baha, District Karnal v. State of Haryana [1997] 104 STC 362 (P&H); (1996) 3 PLR 227. The operative part of the judgment of the Full Bench which also contains the final conclusions recorded by it reads as under :

Click here to view full judgment.

UNITED RICELAND PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address