SOLVEX OIL AND FERTILISERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the petitioner's prayer for refund of tax deposited by it liable to be declined in view of the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1988 notified on September 8, 1988? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case.

(2.) The factual matrix of this case lies within a narrow compass. In pursuance to the order dated May 15, 1981 passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, the assessment Proceedings against the petitioner in respect of payment of purchase tax were reopened under Sec. 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Assessing Authority vide its order dated October 30, 1981 held the petitioner liable to pay tax on the purchase of rice bran @ 7% in respect of the assessment year 1977 -1978. The petitioner's appeal having been dismissed, it approached the Sales Tax Tribunal. Vide order dated April 15, 1987, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P. 3. with the writ petition, the Tribunal found that rice bran used by the petitioner for extraction of oil" would be classified as fodder......under entry No. 34 of Schedule B appended to the State Act and would not be liable to tax even if these goods were not used as fodder.' Accordingly, the petitioner's appeal was accepted and the levy of purchase tax was quashed. The Assessing Authority filed a review petition which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated March 16,1988, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P. 4 with the writ petition. The Legislature then promulgated the Haryana General Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act') on September 8, 1988. By this Amending Act, an explanation was inter -alia added to entry 34 to provide that fodder (dry or green) shall not include rice bran. This was made operative w.e.f. May 5, 1973. In pursuance to the provisions of the Amending Act, the petitioner's prayer for the refund to tax deposited by it was declined. A copy of the order dated July 17, 1989, passed in this behalf is at Annexure P. 6. Aggrieved by this action, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. This amendment has been challenged on a number of grounds.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been inter -alia averred that the Legislature was fully competent to enact the Amendment Act and that the writ petition is wholly lacking in merit and deserves to be dismissed.