SATNAM OVERSEAS EXPORT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2002-10-83
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 24,2002

SATNAM OVERSEAS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LIMITED VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-1-110] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD VS. BARODA RAYONS CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2023-1-1942] [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS [LAWS(PAT)-2016-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI FOODS VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2013-7-193] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED RICELAND LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2011-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. NARAIN SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2009-7-85] [REFERRED TO]
VISHKARMA STONE CRUSING CO. SOHNA VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(P&H)-2003-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
TVL TRANSTONNELSTROY AFCONS JOINT VENTURE, VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2020-9-756] [REFERRED TO]
Mysore Coffee Curing Works Ltd. VS. State of Karnataka and another [LAWS(KAR)-2004-3-92] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. AZAD COACH BUILDERS PVT LTD [LAWS(SC)-2010-9-90] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS ETC VS. UNITED RICELAND PVT LTD & ANR ETC [LAWS(SC)-2018-4-87] [REFERRED TO]
IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
GUPTA ENTERPRISES VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,MUNNAR [LAWS(KER)-2016-7-107] [REFERRED TO]
GAYA DEEN KAILASH CHAND VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-3-266] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LIMITED AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-1-175] [REFERRED TO]
AKHILESHWAR KUMAR PATHAK VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-8-134] [REFERRED]
MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED AND ORS VS. CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISS [LAWS(APH)-2016-6-53] [REFERRED]
KUMAR RICE MILL PVT. LTD VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2013-11-127] [REFERRED TO]
MONISHWAR DHAM GRAMODYOG SANSTHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-75] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED RICELAND PVT LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2004-12-11] [REFERRED]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. AZAD COACH BUILDERS PVT LTD [LAWS(SC)-2006-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
GHANASHYAM MISHRA AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY VS. EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2021-4-19] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave is granted in the special leave petitions.
(2.)The solution to the questions raised in this batch of cases turns on a true interpretation of the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, "the Haryana Act")/the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, "the Punjab Act") in the light of the provisions of Art. 286 of the Constitution and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the CST Act"").
(3.)For the sake of convenience, these cases can be divided into two groups. (A) The first consists of two categories of cases arising under the Haryana Act in respect of assessments for the period : (i) ending with October 14, 1990 and (ii) between October 15, 1990 and September 28, 1996; and (B) The second takes in cases arising under the Punjab Act.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.