G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order, annexure P3, dated September 18, 2000, vide which the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana (for short, "the Tribunal") dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner and others against the orders passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Hisar/deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Revisional Authority, Hisar, rejecting their prayer for grant of rebate on the entire quantity of the raw material, i. e. , cotton seeds used for manufacturing the oil.
(2.) The petitioner is registered as a dealer under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, "the Act" ). It is engaged in the business of manufacturing oil from cotton seeds purchased after paying tax at the first stage of sale. It filed returns claiming rebate in lieu of the tax paid on the raw material. Vide orders dated May 12, 1999, May 24, 1999 and May 25, 1999, the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Sirsa, finalised the assessment for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 and allowed proportionate rebate under rule 24-A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short, "the Rules") instead of granting full rebate on the tax paid on the cotton seeds. The appeals filed by the petitioner under section 39 (1) and (2) of the Act claiming full rebate were dismissed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Hisar and the Tribunal vide orders dated January 31, 2000 and September 18, 2000. Reference application filed by the petitioner under section 42 of the Act was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated September 19, 2000.
(3.) The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Tribunal on the ground that it is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [1992] 85 STC 220 and its own order dated June 22, 2000, passed in S. T. M. Nos. 10-11 of 1999-2000 (Jyoti Luxman Roller Flour Mills P. Ltd. , Rohtak v. State of Haryana ). It has averred that "khal" is a by-product obtained in the process of manufacturing oil from cotton seeds and, therefore, the Tribunal has committed a serious illegality by declining its prayer for grant of full rebate on the tax paid on the raw material, i. e. , cotton seeds. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, reliance has been placed on rule 24-A of the Rules and entry 34 of Schedule B in support of their case that the petitioner is not entitled to full rebate on the tax paid cotton seeds used in the manufacture of oil.;