Rubber Reclaim Company Of India Pvt Ltd vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 27 April, 2015
After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the
present writ petition as such cannot be entertained once the matter has itself
been decided interse the parties by the Apex Court itself. It is not disputed the
initially the dispute was raised on 4.5.1998 (Annexure P/6) wherein a show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner-company that they had dispatched goods on
consignment basis amounting to Rs.95 lacs (approx.) and also consignment
sales to the tune of Rs.4 crores (approx.) during the period of exemption. The
petitioner-company had approached this Court and it had been given liberty to
file reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, liability was assessed vide
assessment order dated 16.3.2005 (Annexure P/8) under the Central Sales Tax
Act, 1956 to the tune of over Rs.54 lacs and exemption also was sought to be
withdrawn and dealer was accordingly assessed as a normal dealer. The
assessment order was sought to be challenged apart from challenging the vires
of the Rules by filing Civil Writ Petition No.6688 of 1999 and also pleading
that the company had been declared sick which was decided by this Court vide
order dated 31.3.2010 (Annexure P/10). The decision of this Court dated
31.3.2010 in favour of the petitioner-company was set aside by the Apex Court
PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA
2015.05.01 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14863 OF 2013(O&M) -4-
vide order in State of Haryana and another Vs. Rubber Reclaim Co. of India
(2013) 14 SCC 763 by specifically noting that if there was a violation of any one
of the conditions of the Rule, the sales tax authorities are at liberty to cancel the
exemption certificate and call upon the assessee to make payment of the tax with
interest. Further direction was issued to the assessing authority to pass fresh
assessment order for the periods in dispute after affording opportunity of hearing
to the assessee. The order withdrawing the exemption was accordingly upheld.
The relevant observations read as under:-