Ritu Bahri, J. - (1.) PETITIONER is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for amending/quashing of the order dated 18.07.2008 (Annexure P -5) passed by the Director Agriculture -cum Cane Commissioner -respondent No. 2, whereby part claim of the petitioner has been allowed amounting to Rs. 47,27,452.83. Petitioner has further sought a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 1,55,86,119/ - out of the total claim amounting to Rs. 2,03,14,572/ -.
(2.) THE petitioner -company is manufacturing white crystal sugar for the general public and also exporting the same to the other countries. The purchase and supply of sugarcane is regulated by the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase & Supply) Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act'). As per Section 17 of the Act, tax is imposed on the purchase of sugarcane by or on behalf of sugar factory in consultation with the Sugarcane Control Board. As per Section 17(A) of the Act, if the Government is satisfied that a factory has exported out of India any quantity of sugar manufactured by it, may refund to such factory, whether prospectively or retrospectively, the amount of tax imposed on and paid by it under Section 17 in respect of the cane purchased by it and utilized in manufacturing the quantity of sugar so exported. The petitioner exported huge quantity of sugar between 1990 -91 to 2003 -04. Purchase tax was paid by it as per Section 17 of the Act. Claim for refund of the purchase tax as per Section 17A of the Act was made to the respondents as per letter dated 13.01.2006 (Annexure P -1). Finally, vide letter dated 21.08.2008 (Annexure P -9), the Government decided to refund the cane purchase tax amounting to Rs. 47,28,452.83 for the period from 1990 -91 to 1995 -96. The petitioner was informed that refund of purchase tax from 1996 -97 onwards cannot be granted as sugar export was de -canalized and Sugar Mills have directly exported sugar out of India. On notice, reply has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. With reference to the provisions of Section 17A of the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953, it has been stated that it does not give any vested right to Sugar Mills to claim refund of cane purchase tax. It is open to the Government to allow refund of the cane purchase taxes prospectively or retrospectively. It has been further stated that it is not mandatory for the State Government to refund the purchase tax on account of sugarcane used for the production of sugar exported out of country, because on one side, the Sugar Mill gets foreign currency by exporting sugar and on the other side, it cause loss to the State exchequer for claim refund of tax. The refund of purchase tax had been rejected by the State Government from 1996 -97 to 2003 -04 with respect to other Sugar Mills also.
(3.) AN affidavit dated 18.04.2012 was filed by the Additional Cane Commissioner, Haryana, stating that the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4 of the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958, used to fix the quantity of sugar for the purpose of export by issuing notification. Therefore, all the Sugar Mills were bound to comply with the notification and make necessary export out of India. However, the said Act has now been repealed w.e.f. 15.01.1997 and the export of sugar has now been decanalised. After repealing o the Act, the export of sugar has been made voluntary in the hands of Sugar Mills. After decanalisation of export of sugar, the Sugar Mills are not required to export as per the notification, issued by the Central Government. Now, in case, any Sugar Mill exports sugar, the Government will not be bound to compensate for the losses, if any. The Sugar Mills are not legally bound to export fixed quantity of sugar and they are free to sell sugar without any restriction.;