M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of seven writ petitions, which are fully detailed in the footnote, as common issues have been raised in these petitions. The prayer made is to declare Sec. 6A introduced in the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Act') to be ultra vires of the Constitution and beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. A further prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the State to levy and collect sales tax only on the actual sale price bargained between the petitioners and their customers.
(2.) Brief facts may first be noticed which are being taken from C.W.P. No. 1576 of 2003. The petitioner companies are engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling cement throughout the country including the State of Haryana where they have their sales offices. All of them are duly registered with the Sales Tax Department, Haryana under the provisions of the Haryana Act and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in various districts. The respondent State has enacted the Act. The Act was amended by the Haryana General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Haryana Act No. 21 of 2002). By amendment Sec. 6A was incorporated which postulate levy of sales tax on any transaction of sale of goods indicated in the Schedule on the Maximum Retail Price (for short 'MRP') of the goods as against the actual price of consideration which is paid or becomes payable by the buyer to seller on such sales as have taken place. The MRP is required to be declared on the package as per the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 or the Rules framed thereunder or any other law for the time being in force. Such sale price is chargeable only at the last point of sale by the retailer.
(3.) Mr. Sandeep Goyal and Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, learned Counsel for the petitioners have argued that Sec. 6A of the Act is pari -materia to Sec. 4A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for brevity, 'the Rajasthan Act'). The validity of Sec. 4A of Rajasthan Act was challenged and a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan Chemists Association v/s. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 147 STC 476 (Raj), has held that tax on first point sale cannot be charged with reference to published MRP when the goods by a manufacturer/wholesaler/distributor are sold to retailer because the MRP is neither charged or chargeable by the wholesaler from the retailer. According to the learned Counsel the Division Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court was upheld in the case of State of Rajasthan v/s. Rajasthan Chemists Association .;