Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Punjab Basmati Rice Ltd., Amritsar vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 5 September, 2014
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Fateh Deep Singh
CWP No. 18368 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 18368 of 2014
Date of Decision: 5.9.2014
M/s Punjab Basmati Rice Ltd., Amritsar
....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH.
PRESENT: Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate for the petitioner.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for declaring Sections 6 (7) and 13(1A) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short "the Act") and the notification dated 4.10.2013 (Annexure P-2) to be unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19, 245, 265, 286 and Article 301 read with Article 304 of the Constitution of India; for issuance a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 30.6.2014 (Annexure P-3); for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to not to charge advance tax from the petitioner on the goods being brought in the State for setting up of a new Rice Sheller on which no tax liability would occur and same are not for sale, further no tax be charged on the rice purchased against 'H' Form which is to be exported and no tax liability would occur and also no advance tax should be charged on plastic bags purchased from outside the State for packing of rice for export purposes; for issuance of directions to the respondents to refund the amount of advance tax collected under Section 6(7) of the Act and notification dated 4.10.2013 (Annexure P-2).
GURBACHAN SINGH 2014.09.08 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 18368 of 2014 -2-2. Primary grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that on 26.7.2014 (Annexure P-4) an application had been submitted to respondent No.2 for exemption from the payment of advance tax, as the petitioner is covered under the relevant provisions of Section 6(7) of the Act. Thereafter, reminder dated 27.8.2014 (Annexure P-5) was sent to respondent No.2 but no decision has so far been taken thereon by the concerned respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question of vires has also been assailed in this writ petition. But in case certificate of lower rate of tax deduction or exemption is granted, then the question of vires raised, shall be rendered academic.
4. In view of the above, we dispose of this writ petition by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the application dated 26.7.2014 (Annexure P-4) followed by reminder dated 27.8.2014 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is, however, clarified that the question of vires of provisions of Sections 6(7) and 13(1A) of the Act is not being adjudicated upon at this stage and it shall be open to the petitioner to approach this Court again laying challenge to the vires of the aforesaid provisions in accordance with law, after the decision on the application (Annexure P-4) by the concerned authority.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
September 5, 2014 (FATEH DEEP SINGH)
gbs JUDGE
GURBACHAN SINGH
2014.09.08 10:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh