Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India WITH P. C Nos.7468 7469/81,3838 39/83,5398/85,5435/85,386/84, 1489/ 86, 12691/85, 489 90/83, 81/83, 68/86 1065/87 Lakshmi Chandra Goyal, B.B. Sahni and Serve Mitter for the Petitioners P. Gupta, Solicitor General, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Aysha Khatri, Ms. V. Mohana and Ms. Nisha Bagchi for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY J. A companymon question arises in this batch of writ petitions.
By issuing Form ST.
Manohar and Company Panipat Ors.
15, the petitioners undertook that the goods manufactured by them out of the said raw material would be sold by them either within the State or in the companyrse of inter state trade and companymerce or in the companyrse of export within the meaning of Section 5 1 of the Central Sales Tax Act.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition c Nos.
A dealer issuing the said Form need number pay the purchase tax on such raw material.
Petition No.
9835 38 of 1983.
Neither party paid tax on the said sale purchase.
For the assessment years in question, the Sales Tax Authorities of Haryana levied purchase tax on the purchase of raw material made by the petitioner, following the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in M s. Murli.
After manufacturing the items of handicrafts, the petitioners say, they sold them to dealers in Delhi who, in turn, exported them out of India.
Civil Writ.,
At the time of sale of handicrafts to Delhi dealers, the Delhi dealers issued Form H, prescribed under the Central Sales Tax Rules which means that the goods purchased were meant for export.
V. State of Haryana 0rs.
