Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahabir Vegetable Oil (P) Ltd. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 1 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: [2002]127STC310(P&H)
Author: N.K. Sud
Bench: N.K. Sud
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner has filed these two petitions to challenge the notification dated March 29, 1996 and the orders of assessment in respect of the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The petitioner's challenge is based on the ground that the notification dated March 29, 1996 is ultra vires Section 15 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Consequently, the action of the authority in levying sales tax at the rate of 4 per cent on the sale of deoiled rice bran cattle feed is wholly without jurisdiction. On this basis, the petitioner prays that the notification as well as the orders of assessment be quashed.
2. We have heard Mr. D.D. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner in both these cases. He contends that under Section 15 of the Act, the rate of tax has been prescribed. By virtue of the first proviso, the goods specified in Schedule "B" are exempted from payment of sales tax. Thus, the action of the respondents in issuing the notification dated March 29, 1996 by which sales tax at the rate of 4 per cent has been imposed, on various items, including deoiled rice bran cattle feed is invalid. Learned counsel has referred to entry 67 in Schedule "B". This entry reads as under :
"Entry 67 : 'Cattle feed, that is to say, a mixture of rice polish, rice bran deoiled, gram churi, mustard extraction, molasses, barley sprout, salt, mineral mixture, urea and damaged wheat.'"
3. A perusal of the above would show that cattle feed, which may be a mixture of the items mentioned in the entry, has been exempted from payment of sales tax. The entry cannot' be read to mean that the items like rice polish, rice bran deoiled, gram churi, etc., have been individually exempted from payment of sales tax. It is only when these items are mixed together to form a cattle feed that the exemption has been granted by the Legislature. What is the position in the present case ?
4. By the impugned notification, sales tax at the rate of 4 per cent has been imposed on various items, including deoiled rice bran. Entry 24 reads as under :
"24. Barley flour, barley ghat, gowar and its flour, gowar giri, dried peas and its dal, rajmah, lobia, rongi, rice bran, deoiled rice bran cake and paddy husk."
5. A perusal of the above entry shows that sales tax has been levied at the rate of 4 per cent on various items including deoiled rice bran cakes. We find nothing in common in entry 24 in the impugned notification and entry 67 in Schedule "B". Thus, the solitary contention, on which the impugned notification has been challenged, cannot be sustained.
6. Mr. Verma has then challenged the validity of the order of assessment, copies of which are annexures P-12 and P-15 in the two writ petitions. This is a matter, which can be raised before the appropriate authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act, by filing an appeal. This Court cannot go into the validity of the order of assessment, especially when full facts are not placed before us.
7. Mr. Verma submits that the Sales Tax Tribunal has consistently taken the view that the sales tax is not leviable on the sale of deoiled rice bran cake. Copies of the orders have been produced before us. It is, however, conceded by the counsel that all the orders relate to the period prior to the issue of the notification dated March 29, 1996. Since the sales tax had not been levied on deoiled rice bran cake, the Tribunal could have taken the views that the item was not subject to the levy of sales tax. However, the learned counsel has not referred to any order relating to the period after the issue of the notification dated March 29, 1996. In this view of the matter, no support can be derived from these orders.
No other point has been raised.
8. In view of the above, we find no merit in these petitions. These are, consequently, dismissed in limine.