PANTH STONE Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of assessment dated 28.7.1997 filed as Annexure P-1 passed by the third Respondent, for the reason that the crushing of the stone-boulders does not constitute any manufacture and the fourth Respondent, who sold the leasing rights has also paid the tax and consequently, refund the tax and penalty levied with a further direction that the Petitioner is not eligible to have himself registered under the Himachal Pradesh, General Sales Tax Act, 1968 and pay the tax thereunder.

(2.) The Petitioner is said to be running the business of "stone-crusher" at Dhami-Halog in Tehsil and District Shimla. It is stated for the Petitioner that the stone crushing is a processing industry and not a manufacturing industry and in the process no new substance is manufactured except the bigger boulders are crushed and sized into smaller crushed stones. It is also stated for the Petitioner that even according to the third Respondent for the assessment year 1993-94, the Petitioner did not even have taxable quantum of turnover but for the assessment year 1994-95 the Petitioner was held to have the taxable quantum of Rs. 40,000/- on 30.11.1994 and as a consequence thereof liable to pay tax under the Act with effect from 1.12.1994 and consequently, determined the tax payable by the Petitioner for the assessment year 1994-95 at Rs. 3,564/- with penalty at Rs. 900/-, in all amounting to Rs. 4,463/-. For the assessment year 1995-96 the tax liability was fixed at Rs. 19,440/- with penalty at Rs. 4,860/-, determining the total liability to Rs. 24,300/-. Similarly for the assessment year 1996-97, the tax liability was fixed at Rs. 21,606/- with a penalty of Rs. 5,419/- and thereby the total liability at Rs. 27,025/-. The dealer was directed to pay the tax by 27th August, 1997 with a default clause that on failure to do so, the interest at the rate of 18% will be charged thereafter from the due date in respect of the assessment for the years 1994-96 onwards.

(3.) The further claim on behalf of the Petitioner is that the impugned assessment is bad in law since the items in question have been taxed at the first stage of sale within the State and the Petitioner had already paid tax on royalty for the extraction of stones to the Mining Office, Shimla, from whom the mining rights have been procured and inasmuch as the amount of royalty which has been treated as a price for the procurement of such rights, has already been taxed under the Act, no tax can be levied on the sale of crushed stone when the same is sold in view of Section 6(2) of the Act. Adverting to Section 8 of the Act, it is claimed that the persons dealing in the items on which tax is and has been charged at the first stage of sale are not required to be registered and as the Petitioner has paid tax at the time of purchased of mining rights, he is not required to register and the entire assessment so framed is bad in law. The Petitioner has not chosen to invoke and exhaust any effective alternative remedies under the Act but straightaway came to this Court contending that there is no other efficacious remedy available to him in order to justify his recourse to writ jurisdiction.