High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
M/S CHAMAN LAL AND SONS, SWANK MANDI, AM v. STATE OF PUNJAB - STC-44-1992  RD-P&H 3359 (23 May 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
STC NO. 44 OF 1992
DATE OF DECISION: 29.5.2006
M/S CHAMAN LAL AND SONS, SWANK MANDI, AMRITSAR ....PETITIONER
STATE OF PUNJAB
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
PRESENT: MR. AVNEESH JHINGAN, ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER
MR. AMOL RATTAN, ADDL. A.G., PUNJAB
This order will dispose of two petitions bearing STC Nos. 44 and 16 of 1992. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from STC No. 44 of 1992.
This is a petition under Section 22 (2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax, 1948 (for short 'the Act') for issuance of a direction to the Sales Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh for referring the following questions of law to this Court for opinion:
"i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tax levied on paddy which has been utilised in manufacturing rice is sustainable in law according to section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 ?
ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tax levied on paddy is a tax on manufacturing activity which is in violation of Article 286 of the Indian Constitution ?
iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the STC NO. 44 OF 1992 
tax levied on paddy which has been utilised in manufacturing of rice which in turn has been exported to foreign countries within the meaning of section 5(3), is sustainable in law ?
iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the applicant is liable to pay tax for purchases made from registered dealer in view of section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act ?"
At the very outset, counsel for the State submitted that the issues sought to be raised in the present case are covered by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in United Riceland Ltd. v. State of Haryana  104 STC 362 , which was upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Satnam Overseas (Export) v. State of Haryana and another  130 STC 107. This could not be disputed by counsel for the petitioner.
In this view of the matter, the present petitions are dismissed.
May 29, 2006 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.