Posted On by &filed under High Court, Punjab-Haryana High Court.


Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rathi Bhatta Company And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 9 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2004 134 STC 51 P H
Author: G Singhvi
Bench: G Singhvi, N Singh


JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1.The petitioners, have challenged the vires of notification dated March 31, 1999 by which rule 39A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short, “the Rules”) has been amended so as to make the brick kiln owners liable to pay lump sum tax with effect from October 1, 1998.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the order dated December 11, 1996 passed in C.W.P. No. 11994 of 1996 [Ranbir Singh Ram Gopal v. State of Haryana [2002] 125 STC 326 (P&H)] and submitted that in view of the decision of the division Bench, which has become final, the impugned notification should be struck down to the extent of retrospectivity.

3. The learned Deputy Advocate General fairly conceded that in view of the judgment of Ranbir Singh Ram Gopal’s case [2002] 125 STC 326 (P&H), he is not in a position to defend the retrospective amendment in the rate of the lump sum tax payable by the brick kiln owners.

4. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned notification to the extent it makes the brick kiln owners liable to pay higher rate of lump sum tax with retrospective effect. We also direct that the respondents shall not initiate, proceedings for recovery of lump sum tax at the enhanced rates from the petitioners for the period between October 1, 1998 and March 31, 1999. If the proceedings for recovery of the lump sum tax have already been initiated on the basis of the impugned notification and order has already been passed by the concerned authority, then the same shall not be implemented. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners shall be liable to pay tax at the old rates for the aforesaid period and the concerned authority shall be entitled to recover the same in accordance with law.

5. We also hope that this order will be given effect to qua other similarly situated persons so that necessity of filing of similar petitions is obviated.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.271 seconds.