1988 (5) TMI 354

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lling in accordance with the Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1979 and the Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1985, issued by the State of Haryana with the concurrence of the Central Government under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.   In the case reported as Food Corporation of India v. State of Haryana [1987] 66 STC 7, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court on 26th November, 1986 that the earlier orders which were subject-matter of the decision in Vishnu Agencies' case [1978] 42 STC 31 (SC) were different from the levy order under which the State Government sets of machinery for compulsory acquisition of the essential commodities. It was therefore held by this Court that the Supreme Court decision in C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....83 and, therefore, following the Division Bench judgments in the two cases cited above, the orders of the Assessing Authorities in these cases levying sales tax would not be correct under the law. Therefore, the orders of the Tribunal in these cases upholding the findings of the lower authorities would need to be reviewed. The said orders are hereby reviewed and following the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the appeals in all the 57 cases are accepted as these transactions, having taken place before 2nd February, 1983, cannot be considered to be transactions of sale and cannot be subjected to levy of sales tax. The appeals having now been accepted, if the dealers have deposited any part of the tax, the same should be refun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal vide its order dated 15th May, 1987 (copy annexure P3) on the review applications filed by the petitioners and, therefore, their claim for refund was within limitation. According to the learned counsel, the cases are fully covered by the following judgments of the Supreme Court reported as Sales Tax Officer, Banaras v. Kanhaiya Lal Makund Lal Saraf [1958] 9 STC 747, State of Kerala v. Aluminium Industries Ltd. [1965] 16 STC 689 and Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 971. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. In Shri Vallabh Glass Works' case AIR 1984 SC 971 the Supreme Court observed in para 9 of the judgment as under: "W....