SWASTIK PIPES LTD. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the dealer -Assessee, a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated November 11, 2003 passed in S. T. C. No. 22 of 2002, directed the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity, "the Tribunal"), to refer the following question of law for opinion of this Court, which has emerged from the order dated July 31, 2000, passed by the Tribunal in respect of assessment years 1987 -88 and 1988 -89:

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the dealer -Assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of steel tubes, which are partly sold from within the State and partly from its depots situated outside the State. The dealer -Assessee used to purchase the raw materials and consumable stores required for manufacture of tubes partly from within the State without payment of tax and partly from outside the State against form C. It is conceded position that the dealer -Assessee has filed sales tax returns in form ST 9 for the assessment years 1987 -88 and 1988 -89 but did not file any returns regarding purchase tax, which were required to be filed in form ST 10. The Assessing Authority issued notices in form ST 25 under Section 28(2) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for brevity, "the Act") asking it to produce documents/evidence in support of the returns for the purpose of finalising the assessment order under Section 28 of the Act. The dealer -Assessee raised objection that without issuing a statutory notice or a notice under Section 28(5) of the Act, purchase tax assessment cannot be finalised. On January 7, 1991 and April 5, 1991, the Assessing Authority finalised the assessment of purchase tax in respect of the assessment years 1987 -88 and 1988 -89.

(3.) THE Tribunal rejected the arguments that any other notice under Section 28(5) of the Act was required to be served on the dealer -Petitioner. The Tribunal followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anandji Haridas and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. S. P. Kushare, Sales Tax Officer, Nagpur, (1968) 21 STC 326. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from the concluding para of judgment: