S.S.SANDHAWALIA,J. - (1.) THE retrospectivity accorded to item No. 34 in Schedule B of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, with effect from 20th May, 1955, is the primary and indeed the sole subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition.
(2.) IT is unnecessary to advert to the facts in detail and indeed the learned counsel for the petitioner-firm himself hardly adverted to them. It suffices to mention that the petitioner-firm which is engaged in the business of commission agency and sale of foodgrains, including the chhilka of food-grains, was assessed to sales tax by two separate assessment orders with regard to the sale of the latter commodity. The petitioner-firm challenged the imposition of sales tax on the sale of chhilka of foodgrains by way of appeal and following a Division Bench judgment of this Court, the Appellate Tribunal held that no sales tax was leviable thereon and in consequence thereof, the petitioner secured a refund of Rs. 3,696. 99 in respect of sales tax on the sale of chhilka of foodgrains by it during the relevant years of 1969-70 and 1970-71. Meanwhile, the Haryana General Sales Tax. Act, 1973, was promulgated and by virtue of Section 1 (3) thereof, item No. 34 in Schedule B thereof was given retrospectivity with effect from 20th May, 1955. The Assessing Authority, Jind, thereupon issued the following notice to the petitioner-firm directing it to redeposit the amount already refunded: Haryana Government has amended item No. 34 appended to the Schedule B of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act with effect from 20th May, 1955, as a result of which chhilka of foodgrains became liable to tax with retrospective effect, i. e. , 20th May, 1955. In view of validation made by the Haryana Government, you are required to redeposit the amount already refunded to you on account of sale of chhilka sold by you during the years 1969-70 and 1970-71. Please take notice and appear in person or through your authorised agent on 8th February, 1974, at 9-00 A. M. at Jind and state as to why the amount be not recovered from you on this account. The amount is tabulated as under:. . . . If you fail to comply as directed, ex parte decision would be made and recovery would be effected according to law. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition to challenge the notice and the retrospectivity of the provisions on which it is based.
(3.) AS would appear hereinafter, the matter appears to us as concluded against the petitioner by a Division Bench judgment of this Court which is on all fours. It, therefore, suffices to briefly indicate the grounds of the challenge and the manner in which they stand repelled in the said judgment.;