SATNAM OVERSEAS(EXPORT)THROUGH ITS PARTNER ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 271 · Decided: 24-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Leave Granted & Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SATNAM OVERSEAS(EXPORT)THROUGH ITS 
PARTNER ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
OCTOBER 24, 2002 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 I Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 
1948-Section 9, Sections 2(p), 6, 15, 15-A and 17 (as amended by Haryana C 
Act 4of1991) and Section 40 I Section 4 and 4-B-Purchase tax-On paddy 
meant for export of rice procured therefrom-Exemption from tax granted 
under Section 9 (J)(b)-Levy of tax after amendment of Sections 2(p), 6, 15 
and 15-A with retrospective effect and omission of Section 9-However during 
the relevant assessment year Section 9 existed-Propriety of the levy-Held, 
In the specified circumstances in which charge of purchase tax on the raw D 
material is imposed, exemptions under Section 9(J)(b) are applicable-While 
Section 9 remained on the statute on the date of assessment, retrospective 
amendments of Section 2(p), 6, I 5 and 15-A of the Haryana Act would make 
no difference in regard to levy of purchase tax on paddy-Denial of refund 
of purchase tax paid by a dealer by virtue. of Section I 5~A is not illegal or 
unconstitutional-Assessee is not entitled to exemption under section 5(3) of E 
the Central Sales Tax A ct-Assessees are liable to pay tax on the purchase of 
paddy under Section 4 of the Punjab Act and the similarity between Section 
4-B of the Pwyab Act and Section 9(J)(b) of Haryana Act would not relieve 
the assessee from such liability-Constitution of India, I950-Article 286-
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956-Section 5, I 5. 
F 
Legislative competence-Levy of impost with retrospective effect-Held, 
Legislature is competent to levy retrospectively. 
In the appeals arising under Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, 
assessee a miller-exporter used to purchase paddy, and after .;.ming the G 
same used to export the rice procured therefrom. For the Assessment 
Years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1988-89 and 1989-90 the assessing authority 
granted benefit of Section 9(1)(b) of the Haryana Act and raised 'nil' 
demands on the ground that the transactions of purchase of paddy by the 
assessee were for export of rice procured therefrom. Deputy Excise and 
271 
H 
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Taxation Commissioner (lnspection)-cum-Revisional Authority issued 
show cause notice, and revised the assessment for the said years in view 
of retrospective amendment of Sections 6, 15, ISA and 17 and omission 
of Section 9 thereof holding that assessee was liable to pay purchase tax 
on the paddy. However, omission of Section 9 was not retrospective and 
B during the assessment years in question the amended Section 6 as well as 
Section. 9 were o_n the Statute Book. Assessee challenged the abovesaid 
amendments to the Haryana Act by filing writ petitions before High Court, 
which upheld the validity of the impugned provisions and orders of Deputy 
Commissioner ~evising the assessments. 
C 
The cases arising under Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 relate 
to assessment year 1990-91 and 1991-92. In this case, the assessee 
purchased paddy in the State of Punjab, milled the same and exported 
the rice outside the territory of India. Tax was not paid on the purchase 
of paddy. Show cause notices were issued to demand purchase tax on the 
paddy converted into rice. The demand was confirmed and unsuc!=essfully 
D assailed in the High Court. 
E 
In appeal to this Court with regard to the cases pertaining to 
Haryana Act, the assessee contended that Section 9 of the Act imposes 
charge of purchase tax on paddy and Clause (b) of sub-section (I) of the 
said Section exempts the same as rice procured therefrom is exported; that 
it is not correct that with omission of Section 9 from the statute, 
amendment of Section 6 and inclusion of Section 15-A with retrospective 
effect from 27.5.1971, the liability to pay purchase tax is regulated by 
Section 6 read with Section 15 and adjustments, if any, could be made 
under Section 15-A of the Act; that it is not correct that omissio.n of Section 
p 9 from the statute had no effect in view of the amendment of Section 6 
and inclusion of Section l S~A; that as paddy purchased by the assessee 
was exported albeit in the form of rice, the purchase of paddy itself would 
be deemed to be in the course of export; and that requirement of Article 
286 of the Constitution of India and Section 15( c) of Central Sales Tax 
Act, 1956 are mandatory and this accounts for clause (iii) 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.