TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (8) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on only with relevance to the issue aforesaid. M/s. Ram Rattan Dass Mohan Lal of Dabwali, District Hissar, claim mainly to carry on the business of unginned cotton and after ginning the same to sell it in the form of ginned cotton and cotton seed. It is averred that the goods aforesaid are liable to tax at the stage specified in Schedule D aforesaid read with sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioners filed returns for the year 1967-68 with the Assessing Authority, Sirsa, District Hissar, but the assessment framed by the aforesaid authority was later quashed in appeal and the matter was remanded for redetermination. By his order dated 6th December, 1973 (annexure A to the petition), the Assessing Authority ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 14 clearly specifies cotton of all kinds, both indigenous and imported, in its unmanufactured state, whether ginned or unginned, baled, pressed or otherwise (but excluding cotton waste) as one of the items of declared goods. So far, there is hardly any controversy but, as already noticed, the challenge is to Schedule D as existing and applicable in the State of Haryana on or after 14th November, 1967, but for facility of reference the relevant part thereof may just be set down: "SCHEDULE D -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Serial Name of declared Circumstances under Stage of levy No. goods which tax to be levied -----------------------------------------------------------....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll under item (i) of Schedule D aforesaid and he frankly conceded that if the Assessing Authority were to apply that provision no question of the unconstitutionality of Schedule D would arise. Now if that be so we are unable to see as to why by the mere fact of the Assessing Authority taking a view contrary to that canvassed on behalf of the petitioners and applying item (ii) of the schedule to their case would by that fact alone make the whole of the schedule unconstitutional. It is plain that the constitutionality or otherwise of a statutory provision cannot and does not hinge on its mere application to the facts of a particular case at the very first stage by the Assessing Authority. However, we deem it wasteful to examine the matter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eaking for the court, was considering the amended provisions of section 5(3)(i) and (ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the corresponding provisions of the said Act as applicable in Haryana. It was observed that after the amendment the provisions applicable to Punjab did not suffer from any of the defects from which the earlier unamended Act had suffered and, therefore, the constitutional validity as also its retrospectivity were upheld. As regards the Haryana cases, their Lordships concluded as follows: "We do not think it necessary to set down here the provisions of the Haryana Amendment Act because they follow the scheme of the Punjab Amendment Act in substance and what we have said in regard to the Punjab Amending Act....