JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Since all these appeals raised similar issues and all of them were taken up together for final hearing, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. The questions which fall for consideration in these appeals are mainly two-fold. The first issue that arises for our consideration is whether in light of the facts and circumstances of the present case and upon true and correct interpretation of construction of Note (i) to Schedule III under Clause 2(i) of the Haryana Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “Levy Order”), the appellants/dealers had collected purchase tax on paddy from the government or its agencies alongwith procurement price of levy fixed under the said Levy Order and if so, what would be the effect of such collection.

4. There is a second issue which arises for our consideration, i.e., as to whether the State is empowered to recover certain amounts as purchase tax in light of the scheme envisaged under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and also keeping in view that no sales tax was paid, as payment of the same was specific