LexM/S. UNITED RICELAND LTD. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2011] 1 S.C.R. 186 A M/S. UNITED RICELAND LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 3463 of 2003) B JANUARY 7, 2011 [D.K. JAIN AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] ---- Haryana General Sa/es Tax Act, 1973: s.9(1)(b) - 'r Exemption under - Assessment year 1990-91 - Held: The c benefit of the exemption contained in s. 9(1 )(b) is available to the dealer only upto 15th October, 1990 i.e. the date when Ordinance no. 2 of 1990, deleting s. 9 was promulgated - The dealer would not be liable to pay purchase tax on the purchase of paddy made by them upto 15th October, 1990 - D Haryana General Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Ordinance no.2 of 1990. >- Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 367(2) and 213(2) - Held: An ordinance promulgated by the President or the E Governor has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament or Act of State Legislature, as the case may be - Articles 367(2) and 213(2) make it abundantly clear that an ordinance operates in the field it occupies with the same rigour -r- as an Act - Haryana General Sales Tax (Second F Amendment) Ordinance no.2 of 1990. The appellant was engaged in the business of purchase and dehusking of paddy to produce rice, in the State of Haryana. The turnover of the paddy purchased by the dealer during the assessment year 1990-91 was G subjected to purchase tax under Sections 6 and 15-A of ~' the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by assessment orders dated 14th January, 1997 and 9th July, 1999. The ,. appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the assessment orders. The High Court H 186 ~ .. UNITED RICELAND LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 187 AND ANR. dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and A laches. In the instant appeal, it was contended for the appellant that the date of commencement of an Act which is preceded by an ordinance, is the date of promulgation B of the ordinance; and that the benefit of exemption contained in Section 9(1)(b) of the Act would be available to the dealer till 15th October, 1990 i.e. the date when Ordinance No.-2 of 1990, deleting Section 9 of the Act, was promulgated. c Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. It is trite that an ordinance promulgated by the President or the Governor has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament or Act of State Legislature, D I ~. as the case may be. Articles 367(2) and 213(2) of the Constitution make it abundantly clear that an ordinance operates in the field it occupies with the same rigour as an Act. [Para 14] [196-F-G] R.K. Garg v. Union of India & Ors. (1981) 4 SCC 675; E A.K. Roy v. Union of India & Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 271; Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. (2001) 6 SCC 356; T. ~ Venkata Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1985) 3 SCC 198; Satnam Overseas (Export) & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2003) 1 SCC 561 - relied on. F 2. Ordinance no.2 of 1990 was succeeded by the Haryana General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act no.4of1991 (Act no.4 of 1991) which came into effect from 15th April, 1991. Section 9 ceased to exist in the statute book from G ' the date of promulgation of the ordinance i.e. 15th -~ October, 1990. There was nothing in the Act No. 4of1991 rendering the provisions of the ordinance otiose during the period from 15th October, 1990 to 15th April, 1991, H ' • 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. 1-- A therefore, the benefit of the exemption contained in Section 9(1)(b) of the Act was available to the dealer only upto 15th October, 1990; and not till 1st April, 1991. The dealer will not be liable to pay purchase tax on the purchase of paddy made by them upto 15th October, B 1990, i.e. till the date of promulgation of Ordinance No.2 of 1990. (Paras 15, 16] (197-8-E] United Riceland Limited & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. 104 STC 362 (Full Bench); Bishambhar Nath Kohli & _.,,... c Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1966 SC 573; Mis. Titagarh Paper Mills Ltd. v. Orissa State Electricity Board & Anr. (1975) 2 SCC 436; Murli Manohar and Co. & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (1991) 1 SCC 377; Hotel Balaji & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors. 1993 Supp (4) SCC 536; K.B. Handicrafts D Emporium & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. 1993 Supp (4) sec 589 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 104 STC 362 (FB) referred to Para 4 E (2003) 1 sec 561 referred to Paras 6, 7, 9,12, 13, 15 AIR 1966 SC 573 referred to Para 6 (1981) 4 sec 675 re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.