EMERALD INTERNATIONAL LTD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment of ours would dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1299, 8131, 9092 and 9148 of 1994 as common question of law has arisen in these petitions. Before noticing the question of law, it is necessary to have a brief look on the factual side. The counsel for the parties are agreed that the facts of the case be picked up from Civil Writ Petition No. 1299 of 1994, Emerald International Limited v. State of Punjab, etc. We would accordingly be taking into consideration the factual position as emerging from the aforementioned case only but it is necessary to observe at this stage that in one case, i. e. , Civil Writ Petition No. 8131 of 1994, S. A. R. Springs Industries v. State of Haryana the provisions of Section 39 (5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Haryana Act") would also be noticed as this case arises out of the orders passed by the authorities under the Haryana Act.

(2.) THE facts of the aforementioned case as they emerged from the orders of the Assessing Authority, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (hereinafter called "the appellate authority") and the Tribunal are that the sales tax including penalty and interest (hereinafter referred to as "the tax amount") to the tune of Rs. 24,80,464 was imposed upon the petitioner by the Assessing Authority vide annexure P3. The order, annexure P3, was appealed against before the appellate authority. Along with the appeal an application under Section 20 (5) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, "the Punjab Act") was filed for entertaining the appeal without prior payment of tax amount on the ground that the petitioner was unable to pay the same. The appellate authority, Patiala, by his order dated June 17, 1993 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 (rupees ten lacs) before August 9, 1993 failing which the appeal was to be dismissed as not maintainable. The order of the appellate authority was subjected to a further challenge in appeal before the Tribunal under Section 20 (2) of the Punjab Act. The Tribunal upheld the order of the appellate authority, Patiala. The orders of the authorities below have been challenged by the petitioner in writ petition both on merits and on points of law.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner-assessee Emerald International Ltd. v. State of Punjab, Mr. K. L. Goyal, Advocate, addressed arguments whereas on behalf of other assessees in other writ petitions Mr. A. K. Mittal and Mr. S. S. Saron, Advocates, advanced arguments. Mr. S. K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab, represented the State, whereas the State of Haryana was represented by Mr. S. K. Kapoor and Mr. J. S. Duhan, Assistant Advocate-Generals.