- (1.) The matters relate to the liability of the respondents to pay purchase tax on paddy purchased within the State of Haryana and milled for subsequent export out of the State.
(2.) The issue was decided in favour of the respondents by this Court in Satnam Overseas (Export) through its Partner and Signature Not Verified others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2003 1 SCC 561 by holding that neither Section 6 nor Section 9 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") would authorize the imposition of the levy. This Court in paragraph 28 of the said report [i.e. Satnam overseas ] and relying on the definition of "turnover" in Section 2(p) of the Act and Explanation 2 thereto took the view that "28. the proceeds of sale of any goods on the purchase of which tax is leviable under the Act or the purchase value of any goods on the sale of which tax is leviable under the Act shall not be included in the turnover. Inasmuch as the sale of paddy is taxable under the Act, the purchase value of such paddy cannot be included in the turnover; it is evident that no purchase tax can be imposed under Section 6 of the Haryana Act." Section 9 of the Act which continued to remain in operation till 1st April, 1991 was held by this Court in Satnam Overseas to be a charging as well as an exemption section and as the rice from the paddy procured by the respondent from within the State was to be exported, the benefit of exemption under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act was held in favour of the respondents.
(3.) The Haryana General Sales Tax Act was amended in the year 2003 by Amendment Act No.4 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "2003 Amendment"), inter alia, amending Section 6 of the Act making the provisions of Section 6 of the Act subject to Sections 15 and 27 thereof in place of the "other provisions of the Act", as contained earlier. Section 9 of the Act which was already omitted/deleted with effect from 1st April, 1991 remained untouched by the 2003 Amendment. As the amended provisions of the Act were relied upon to deny the benefit of refund to the respondents for purchase tax paid for periods when Section 9 was in force, the matter was re-agitated before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. By the impugned order, the High Court answered the issue in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.;