TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 869
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....curement Levy Order, 1985 (hereinafter mentioned as the 1985 Order). A notification dated April 21, 1999 (annexure A3), for the crop year 1998-99, was issued by the Haryana Government amending the 1985 Order, whereby procurement price of rice was made inclusive of purchase tax. The Assessment Authority, while framing assessment for the assessment year 1998-99 (annexure A4) assessed the appellant to purchase tax on the ground that purchase tax is part of the sale price determined and paid by the DFSC to the appellant. The component of purchase tax received in levy price from the Department of Food and Supplies, Haryana, to the tune of Rs. 4,28,738 was directed to be recovered under section 49 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant to payment of purchase tax was confirmed. Repelling the contention of the appellant that he is not liable to pay purchase tax and that the same should be adjusted towards notional sales tax liability, was held to be devoid of any merit. When the appellant took the matter further in second appeal, the Tribunal in its order dated July 29, 2011 (annexure A11) affirmed leviability of purchase tax on the appellant unit notwithstanding that it was exempted from payment of sales tax. However, taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, instead of making its own adjudication, the Tribunal accepting plea of the Revenue taking shelter in earlier decision of the Tribunal and of this court in the light of observations of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r sales tax as also for purchase tax. It is urged that when the matter of levy of purchase tax on purchase of paddy in case of exempted units has been left open, i.e., without decision by the honourable apex court, second assessment order (annexure A 8) could not be legally enforced against the appellant unless the issue of exemption is considered and authoritatively decided by a competent court of jurisdiction. Continuing with this plea, it is further claimed by the appellant that it cannot be burdened with payment of general purchase tax on the assumption that earlier order (annexure A6) of the Tribunal and of this court (annexure A7) had survived even after the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court. It is claimed that this assumption ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the fact that no sales tax was payable or paid as it had specifically been exempted. So far as the first question is concerned, it was specifically answered by the honourable apex court in Civil Appeal No. 8236 of 2010 on September 23, 2010 (Jay Vee Rice and General Mills v. State of Haryana [2010] 35 VST 576 (SC)) to the following effect (page 583 in 35 VST): ". . . In the present instance, it is beyond doubt and clear from the appellants' own admission that the procurement price included the element of purchase tax. That there may be an issue relating to the levy of purchase tax does not in any way, affect the conclusion that the appellants, who have been unjustly enriched, must deposit the purchase tax element with the State." ....