2000 (8) TMI 1077

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., "the Tribunal"), respectively. 2.. For the purpose of deciding the issue raised by the petitioner, it is sufficient to mention that the petitioner had challenged the order of the Assessing Authority by filing an appeal under section 39(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, "the Act") along with an application under proviso to section 39(5) for exemption from payment of tax, interest and penalty amounting to Rs. 80,916. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Hissar, rejected the application of the petitioner but the second appeal filed by it was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated March 25, 1997 (annexure P6) with the direction that the appeal be heard on merits subject to deposit of the 25 per ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rimination because while holding the petitioner liable to pay tax, interest, etc., and declining its prayer for exemption, the Tribunal has ignored the order dated March 31, 1998 passed in S.T.R. Nos. 59 and 60 of 1997-98 in the case of M/s. D.D. Rice Mills; and (iii) that in view of the order dated March 31, 1999 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal IV, Haryana in S.T.A. No. 320 of 1998-99, Jai Durga Rice & General Mills v. State of Haryana and 11 connected appeals, the levy of purchase tax has been rendered void ab initio.   4.. The respondents have defended the impugned orders by contending that the levy of purchase tax is consistent with the provisions of the Act and the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975. According to them, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reference to the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in Emerald International Ltd. v. State of Punjab [2001] 122 STC 382 (P&H); (1997) 2 PLR 797. In our opinion, rejection of the petitioner's prayer for exemption is liable to be declared illegal because no tangible reason has been assigned by the Tribunal to justify its conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove its financial incapacity. 6.. Shri Jaswant Singh made a half-hearted attempt to defend the impugned order by arguing that an inference about the change of the petitioner's status can be drawn from the fact that it was a running industry. However, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with him because the written statement filed on behalf of respond....