S.S. Dewan, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of four Writ Petitions Nos. 1925, 1967, 2162 and 2132 of 1975, which are constituted of similar facts and involve common questions of law.
(2.) MATERIAL facts are not in dispute. The petitioner in each case is carrying on the business of sale and purchase of goods in the State of Haryana. Each one of them is a registered dealer and makes purchases of paddy and husks it into rice and is thus the last purchaser of paddy. The petitioners assert that they were not liable for the payment of purchase tax in respect of the purchases of paddy made by them under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, as amended by the Haryana General Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act and the amending Act respectively). The prayer consequently made is that the concerned Assessing Authorities be directed to desist from initiating proceedings or going on with a view to assess them to purchase tax. Before the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are noticed, it seems appropriate to set out here the relevant provisions of the Act and the amending Act.
(3.) OMITTING what is not relevant to the controversy, Section 6 of the Act providing for the incidence of taxation runs thus: 6. (1) Subject to other provisions of this Act, every dealer whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of this Act exceeded the taxable quantum shall be liable to pay tax under this Act on all sales and purchases effected after the coming into force of this Act: Provided that this sub -section shall not apply to a dealer who deals exclusively in goods specified in Schedule B. (2) . . . Explanation - -For the purposes of Sub -sections (1) and (2) 'purchase' shall mean the purchase of declared goods, goods specified in Schedule C and goods falling under Section 9.;