J.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) THE dispute relates to the assessment year 1989 -90. It involves the payment of tax under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The petitioner -assessee prays that the order dated June 8, 1999 and November 15, 1999 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal be quashed.
(2.) A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed. The petitioner is running a rice sheller. It filed its returns for the assessment year 1989 -90. It claimed a rebate of Rs. l,78,998/ - on the purchase of paddy. This claim was accepted by the Assessing Authority vide order dated November 25, 1991. However, this order was revised by the competent authority. A demand of Rs. 2,16,228/ - was created. The assessee filed an appeal which was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated October 31, 1994. The Revenue filed an application for review of the order. This application was accepted vide order dated June 8, 1999. Relying upon the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in United Receland Limited and another versus State of Haryana and Ors. the Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to pay tax on the purchase of paddy which was utilised in procuring rice for export. Since the Full Bench had taken a view that rice and paddy are two separate items, the order dated October 31, 1994 passed by the Tribunal was reviewed. The additional demand of Rs. 2,16,228/ - was upheld. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P3 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner filed a review application. It was dismissed vide order dated November 15, 1999. A copy of this order is at Annexure P5. The petitioner prays that the orders dated June 8 , 1999 and November 15, 1999 be quashed.
(3.) MR . Rajesh Bindal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's appeal against the order dated August 31, 1993 passed under Section 40 of the Act had been accepted by the Tribunal vide its order dated October 31, 1994 on one of the six grounds which had been actually raised in the memorandum of appeal. Even if this order was reviewed by the Tribunal in view of the decision in United Riceland Limited and Anr. (supra) the petitioner was entitled to be heard on the other grounds. It was on this basis that the petitioner had prayed for the review of the order dated June 8, 1999. However, the application was wrongly dismissed vide order dated November 15, 1999.;