Punjab Khandsari Udyog Vs. State - Court Judgment
|Court||Punjab and Haryana High Court|
|Case Number||General Sales Tax Reference No. 9 of 1970|
|Judge|| D.K. Mahajan,; Bal Raj Tuli and; Prem Chand Jain, JJ.|
|Reported in||30STC414(P& H)|
|Appellant||Punjab Khandsari Udyog|
|Appellant Advocate|| M.S. Jain,; J.L. Gupta and; G.C. Garg, Advs.|
|Respondent Advocate|| C.D. Dewan, Additional Adv.-General|
|Cases Referred||The State of Haryana v. Karnal Gur and Khandsari Industries|
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply..........at page 423 infra]. this decision undoubtedly supports him. we are doubtful if a certificate issued contrary to the provisions of the statute would lead to the result which necessarily flows from the letters patent decision. in our opinion, it will be proper that this reference is heard by a larger bench.3. we, therefore, direct that the papers of this case be laid before my lord the chief justice for constituting a larger bench to hear and dispose of this reference.4. in pursuance of the abovesaid order of reference, the reference came on for hearing before the full bench:
D.K. Mahajan, J.
1. The short question which needs determination in this reference under Section 22 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act is whether a registered dealer can escape liability to sales tax in respect of purchase of goods used for the manufacture of goods which are tax-free ?
2. We are not setting out the questions referred for the simple reason that, in our opinion, a basic question is involved on the decision of which the questions referred will have to be answered. The basic question is, whether a certificate issued which runs counter to the provisions of the statute, can nullify those provisions and if the dealer acts on the basis of that certificate he can avoid liability for the contravention of the statutory provisions The learned counsel for the assessee has placed his reliance on the Letters Patent decision of this court in The State of Haryana v. Karnal Gur and Khandsari Industries, Chulkana Road, Samalkha Mandi, District Karnal (L.P.A. No. 313 of 1970), decided on 5th October, 1971 [Printed at page 423 infra]. This decision undoubtedly supports him. We are doubtful if a certificate issued contrary to the provisions of the statute Would lead to the result which necessarily flows from the Letters Patent decision. In our opinion, it will be proper that this reference is heard by a larger Bench.
3. We, therefore, direct that the papers of this case be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to hear and dispose of this reference.
4. In pursuance of the abovesaid order of reference, the reference came on for hearing before the Full Bench: