Shivam Sales Corporation vs State of Haryana and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—The present appeal u/s 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, "the Act") arises out of orders dated May 29, 2003 (A3) and order dated November 6, 2012 (A5) whereby the claim of the appellant for exemption from payment of tax on the strength of furnishing of form ST14A in terms of rule 28A(4) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short, "the Rules") remained unsuccessful. The appellant during the relevant year 2000-01 declared gross turnover including a sum of Rs. 3,47,96,529 representing inter-State sales. The assessing officer allowed the deduction of Rs. 3,47,06,099 as exempted sales having purchased from the industrial units exempted from payment of tax under rule 28A of the Rules but subsequently on audit, the matter was taken up by the revisional authority and tax at the rate of eight per cent amounting to Rs. 27,76,488 was imposed vide order dated May 29, 2003, as tax on inter-State sales. It is the said order which has been affirmed by the Tribunal primarily relying upon a judgment of this court in the case of Casio India Co. Private Limited Vs. State of Haryana,

The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in-terms of rule 28A(4) of the Rules, the exempted successive dealers are exempted from levy of tax including tax on the inter-State sales from purchase or sell subject to furnishing of certificate in form ST14A only. Rules 28A(4) does not exclude inter-State sales from its operation. We do not find any merit in the said argument in view of the judgment of this court in Casio India Co. Private Limited Vs. State of Haryana, It has been held to the following effect (page 12 in 144 STC):

In our opinion, even though, notification dated September 4, 1995 is not happily worded, on a plain construction thereof, we are inclined to approve the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Siemens Telecom Ltd., Gurgaon, which has been followed in the case of the petitioner that the same does not exempt the goods sold in the course of inter-State trade by dealers other than those who hold valid exemption certificate granted under rule 28A of the Rules. If the State Government wanted to extend the benefit of exemption from payment of tax under the Central Act to the sale of goods effected by a dealer in the course of inter-State trade irrespective of the fact that such dealer does not hold exemption certificate under rule 28A of the Rules, then it would have incorporated the language of rule 28A(4)(c) in the notification and would not have put the rider that such dealer should not have charged tax under the Central Act on the sale of goods manufactured by it.

Since this court has categorically held that inter-State sales are not exempted within the scope of rule 28A(4)(c), therefore, for the reasons recorded therein, we do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this court. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.