2013 (1) TMI 700

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Respondents : Nitin Kaushal, Additional Advocate-General, Haryana, ORDER:- The order of the court was made by MS. RITU BAHRI J.-This order shall dispose of the above-mentioned value added tax (for short, "the VAT") appeals filed under section 36(1) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, "the Act") against the order dated May 18, 2012 (annexure P4) passed by the Haryana Ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hether the learned Tribunal was justified in relying on the decision of the apex court in Jay Vee Rice and General Mills v. State of Haryana [2010] 35 VST 576 (SC) which pertained to different assessment years wherein Note (i) contained totally different phraseology? (e) Whether the order of the Tribunal, annexure A4 is legal and justified and sustainable in the eyes of law?" The appellant o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....000 crop and 1998-99 crop would show that in the former case procurement price of rice is exclusive of taxes, if any, leviable at rice stage while in the latter case it includes purchase tax on paddy. In the former case, procurement price of rice exclusive of tax at rice stage would necessarily mean inclusive of all costs, taxes and charges till the rice stage, so this would purchase tax on paddy.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plicable to 1999-2000 crop of rice with effect from 16th September, 1999 marketing season. A perusal of the above notifications shows that in the first notification, incidence of tax is on the price of rice, which is inclusive of purchase tax and mandi charges of paddy, whereas second notification is incidence of tax at the rice stage, which is exclusive of taxes. Both the notifications convey ....