Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 281 (PNJ)

HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA.

2009-02-03

H.S.BHALLA, M.M.KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J. - At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for determination of this court : "(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that jointings fall within entry 25 (asbestos sheets and fittings) ? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the approach of the Tribunal is sustainable in law by going to dictionary meaning and definition of fitting and ignoring the established law of common parlance affirmed in United Offset Process Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay [1989] 74 STC 81 (SC), Kanwar Brothers v. State of Punjab [1992] 84 STC 307 (P&H) and United Copiex (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1996] 101 STC 536 (SC) ? (iii) That the finding that the composition of asbestos and jointings tare the same is supported by any evidence on the record and thus perverse and not sustainable in facts and circumstances ?" The matter pertains to the assessment year 1988-89 (wrongly typed as 1989-90). At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee had pointed out that the revisional authority in respect of the subsequent assessment years, namely, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 has granted the benefit to the assessee by holding that the jointings would not fall within entry 25, which deals with asbestos sheets and fittings. The orders passed by the Tribunal in respect of the subsequent years have been reported as Hyderabad Industries Limited, Faridabad v. State of Haryana [2000] STI 333 (P&H) and Hyderabad Industries Limited v. State of Haryana [2006] 27 PHT 39 (HTT). The learned counsel for the assessee has also submitted that the aforesaid orders are not being assailed by the Revenue before this court. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, learned State counsel, has not been able to controvert the aforesaid assertions made by the learned counsel for the assessee and in that situation, it has to be concluded that the jointings cannot be regarded as a part of asbestos sheets and fittings, which are covered under entry 25. Accordingly, the questions of law raised by the assessee are liable to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly.