TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (2) TMI 735
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; The judgment of the Court was delivered by N. SANTOSH HEGDE, J.-When the State of Haryana tried to impose sales tax on levy transactions undertaken by the appellant in the year 1973, the same was challenged by the appellant before the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the ground that the said transactions did not amount to either purchase or sale. The High Court of Punjab as per its judgment dated May 17, 1975 Reported as Food Corporation of India v. State of Punjab [1976] 38 STC 144., following a judgment of this Court in the case of Chittar Mal Narain Das v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. [1970] 26 STC 344; [1971] 1 SCR 671, allowed the said writ petition and declared that the State of Haryana did not have the constituti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is judgment of the High Court, the State preferred an appeal before this Court in which the leave was granted but no interim order was granted. 4.. The appeal of the appellant and the State of Haryana filed before this Court came to be heard by this Court in the year 1997 along with many other appeals involving similar questions and this Court as per its judgment dated January 6, 1997 Reported as Food Corporation of India v. State of Kerala [1997] 105 STC 4., declared the law as follows: "We, therefore, answer the principal common point holding that the levy procurement is a sale/purchase and, therefore, falls within the purview of entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The States were competent to levy sales/pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... both the parties. The answer to the question that falls for consideration by us depends upon the fact whether there was a valid demand notice in the year 1982 (the year from which the interest is demanded) which obligated the appellant to pay the tax demanded under the said notice. 10.. As we have noticed herein above, so far as the State of Haryana is concerned during the period between May 17, 1975 to January 6, 1997, the law declared by the High Court was that the State of Haryana did not have the constitutional authority to impose sales tax on levy transactions. This declaration of law was not challenged by the State; per contra the State of Haryana accepted the declaration of law made by the High Court, therefore, until the positio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt is made by the State. If the assessee fails to pay after the fresh demand is made then as contemplated under section 59 of the Haryana Act, the assessee becomes liable to pay the interest also. 11.. Facts in this case show that after the judgment of this Court, the respondent-State issued a demand notice dated February 20, 1997 specifically stating as follows: "The honourable Supreme Court of India has disposed of the Civil Appeal No. 1130 of 1987 and No. 1995 of 1987 vide orders dated January 28, 1997 Reported as Food Corporation of India v. State of Kerala [1997] 105 STC 4., and a copy of the order has also been sent to you. After the disposal of the civil appeal tax on levy rice and on wheat is payable. (Emphasis† supp....