Before the High Court, it was companyceded by the companynsel for the dealer that the question of the companystitutional validity of substituted Section 15 A was companycluded against the dealer by virtue of the decision of a Full Bench of the High Court in United Riceland Limited Anr.
The turnover of the paddy purchased by the dealer during the relevant year was subjected to purchase tax under Sections 6 and 15 A of the Act vide assessment orders dated 14th January, 1997 and 9th July, 1999.
Aggrieved by the said levy, the dealer preferred a writ petition before the High Court, challenging, inter alia, the substitution of Section 15 A in the Act vide Act 9 of 1993, with retrospective effect.
27th May, 1971, has been dismissed.
Rice so produced was exported outside the companyntry within the meaning of Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for short the CST Act .
The appellant hereinafter referred to as the dealer , a registered dealer under the Act, was engaged in the business of purchase and dehusking of paddy to produce rice, in the State of Haryana.
The present appeal relates to the assessment year 1990 91.
Hence, the present appeal.
