- (1.) IN these writ petitions (Nos. 5691, 7317, 9565, 9564, 10277, 13602 and 13802 of 1989, 5393 and 9022 of 1990 and 337, 1331, 1501, 3764, 3984, 4696 to 4698, 9455 of 1992 and 16812 and 16813 of 1991) the main surviving challenge is to certain amendments made in Section 2 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, the HGST Act) by the Haryana General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (Haryana Act No. 1 of 1989) (for short, the Amending Act of 1989 ). These petitions came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. The learned Judges observed that the question relating to the constitutional validity of the Amending Act of 1989 was one of great public importance and accordingly referred the same to the Full Bench by order dated June 3, 1992. This is how these petitions are before us.
(2.) FOR giving the factual background, it would be convenient to group these petitions in different sets.
(3.) IN the first set of CWP Nos. 5691, 9565, 9564, 10277, 13602 and 13812 of 1989, 5393 and 9022 of 1990 and 1331, 1501 of 1992 and 16812 and 16816 of 1991, the facts in CWP No. . 10277 of 1989 are fairly representative and may be briefly stated as follow ;-The petitioner has its factory and works at Faridabad in the State of Haryana. It is a registered dealer both under the HGST Act as well as the Central Sales-tax Act, 1956. It is engaged in the manufacture and processing of various types of textiles. This includes processing of what is called grey cloth into finished cloth, The grey cloth is subjected to various treatments and processes involving use of bleaching agents and a number of chemicals. Thereafter the cloth is dyed, sized and printed as per the order of the contractee. The material used in processing any dyeing/printing etc. is purchased by the petitioner from outside the State on furnishing declaration in 'c Form. The petitioner had been submitting the returns and had been paying the amount of sales-tax assessed to be due. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commr. (Inspection) Faridabad issued notices Annexures P-4 and P-5 to the petitioner under Section 40 (2) of the HGST Act in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. These notices relate to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 respectively". In annexure P-4, it was, inter alia stated that as per balance sheet for the period ending 30th June, 1985, the petitioner had charged processing and sizing charges amounting to Rs. 31,87,383. 37 paise. It was further stated that in execution of the said works contract, the petitioner had consumed material worth Rs. 4,27,06,216. 79 after purchasing the same under the HGST Act as well as under the Central Sales-tax Act, 1956. The petitioner was called upon to show cause why the assessment for the said year be not reopened and sales tax be not levied on the price of goods involved in the execution of works contract. Notice annexure P-5 is in the same terms as notice annexure P-4 except that it relates to the assessment year 1985-86 and the amount involved is also different. As the notices in question were based on the amended provisions of clause (1) (ii) of Section 2 of the HGST Act as amended by the Haryana Amending Act of 1989 the petitioner has challenged the notices as well as the constitutional validity of certain provisons of the Haryana Amending Act of 1989.;