S.S.SANDHAWALIA,J. - (1.) THE primary and indeed the sole question that has been agitated in this set of 15 connected writ petitions is : Whether the retrospective effect given to the definition of 'dealer' in Section 2 (c) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, with effect from the 7th of September, 1955, by virtue of the first clause of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 thereof suffers from the vice of unconstitutionality ?
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the parties are agreed that the questions of law and fact are identical and this judgment will govern all the 15 writ petitions. As is manifest, the question aforesaid is pristinely legal and, therefore, it would be unnecessary even to advert to the bare outline of the facts which, however, are not in serious dispute in any one of the writ petitions. It, therefore, suffices to advert to the facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 1648 of 1976 in which the main arguments have been addressed. Messrs. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited and another, the petitioners, mainly carry on the business of manufacture of cloth and yarn in cotton spinning and weaving mills and also operate a number of cotton ginning and pressing factories. The petitioners are registered dealers under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the writ petition was directed primarily against the sales tax assessment made against petitioner No. 2. The Assessing Authority, Hissar, by its order, annexure P-1 dated 18th December; 1975, assessed the total amount of tax against the petitioners at a little over two lakhs of rupees and after taking into account the tax already deposited had issued a demand notice for the balance.
(3.) IN the Writ petition, two questions were initially raised, the first being with regard to the constitutionality of Schedule D read with Section 17 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, frankly concede that this question is now wholly covered against them by the recent Division Bench judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 612 of 1974 {ram Rattan Dass Mohan Lal v. State [1979] 43 S. T. C. 154) decided on 1st August, 1978. No arguments have, therefore, been addressed at all on the point. Following the aforesaid judgment, we accordingly uphold the constitutionality of Schedule D to the Act.;