MOHTA ELECTRO STEEL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the identical issues raised in these Petitions, we are deciding them by a common order. Brief statement of facts : C. W. P. No. 2263 of 1989 Petitioner-M/s Mohta Electro Steel Limited, Bhiwani is a company engaged in the manufacture of stainless steel strips and Cold Rolled Annesling from S. S. Strips and small pieces of coils. It is registered as a dealer under the Haryana General Sales tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act' and also under the Central Sales tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Central Act')- The raw material is purchased by the petitioner No. 1 from within the State of Haryana. It also imports some raw material from outside the State of Haryana. For the year 1983-84, the assessing authority initiated proceedings Under Section 28 (2) of the State Act and passed order dated Sept. 30, 1987 whereby it levied purchase tax on the petitioner No. 1. After the expiry of about one year, the assessing authority issued notice dated 24. 8. 1988. Annexure P5 Under Section 41 of the State Act proposing review of the order dated 30. 9. 1987 by observing that the dealer had purchased consumable stores worth Rs. 19,52,946. 52 but tax Under Section 9 in respect of the consumable stores used for the manufacturing of goods transferred had not been assessed and as the same was not deposited along with the returns, interest and penalty was also leviable. Another notice Under Section 41 of the State Act was issued to the petitioner on 14. 10. 1988. A notice dated 21. 11. 1988 was also issued by the revising authority Under Section 40 of the State Act proposing revision of the order of assessment dated 30. 9. 1987 in respect of the year 1983-84. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply and questioned the jurisdiction of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner to initiate action Under Sections 40 and 41 of the State Act. After hearing the representative of the petitioner No. 1, the revising authority passed the order dated 3. 1. 1989 and assessed the tax Under Section 9 to the tune of Rs. 18,52,029. 52. It also assessed the petitioner Under Section 24 (3) of the State Act for a sum of Rs. 1,25,434. 86. The revising authority levied interest upon the petitioner from May, 93 to September, 1987 and held that a sum of Rs. 1,87,072.00 was payable in the form of interest Under Section 25 (5) of the State Act.

(2.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the vires of Section 14 of the State Act, the amendments made in the State Act by the Haryana General sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1990, as also the amendments made in the State Act by the Haryana Act No. 4 of 1991 on the ground that these provisions are violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 300-A of the Constitution of India are also hit by the decision of the Supreme Court in Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 16 S. T. C. 71. The petitioners have also challenged the action of the revising authority to levy interest and penalty on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. C. T. O. , 48 S. T. C. 446.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they do not want to press the challenge to the vires of Section 9 of the State Act and various amending Acts in view of the decisions of the Supreme in Hotel Balaji and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 88 S. T. C. 98; Devi Dass Gopal Krishan Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, JT 1994 (3) SC 239 and two decisions of this Court in United Rice Land Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1996-3)114 P. L. R. 227 and in C. W. P. No. 6646 of 1986 Good Year India Limited and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. , (1997-2)116 P. L. R. 252 decided on 11. 12. 1996. They, however,. argued that the levy of interest and initiating of action for penalty by the revising authority is uncalled for and unjustified. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. C. T. O. (supra) on the basis of which the revising authority levied interest on the petitioners can no longer be regarded as good law in view of the later decision of the Apex Court in J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. C. T. O,, AIR 1994 SC 2293 ; (94 S. T. C. 422), and, therefore, the impugned orders should be declared illegal. They invited our intention to an order dated 26. 8. 1996 passed in C. W. P. No. 6683 of 1996, F. C. I. v. Stale of Haryana and Anr. , to substantiate their plea that the State Government has conceded the legal position regarding levy of interest in the light of the later decision of the Supreme Court.