JUDGMENT - BHARUCHA S.P., J.:---These three writ petitions challenge the constitutionality of Maharashtra Ordinance No. IX of 1989, and the Maharashtra Act No. II of 1990 which replaced it. They have been heard and can be disposed of together.

2. The petitioners in each writ petition manufacture, inter alia, vanaspati in the State of Maharashtra and, for the purpose, purchase vegetable non-essential of within the State. They despatch and sell vanaspati, inter alia, outside the State.

3. Maharashtra Act 28 of 1982 introduced with effect from 1st July, 1982, section 13-AA into the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, ("the said Act"). This provision, which we shall call "the old section 13-AA", purported to levy an additional purchase tax on goods specified in Part I of Schedule C of the said Act when the dealer who purchased them used such goods in the manufacture of taxable goods and despatched the same outside the State. The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the old section 13-AA by writ petitions filed in this Court. These writ petitions were dismissed (1989(72) S.T.C. 69)1. The petitioners preferred appeals to the Supreme Court. Special Leave to appeal was granted. Stay of recovery of penalty was ordered by the Supreme Court at the interim stage. It was stated also that if the petitioners succeeded in the appeals the amount of the additional purchased tax and interest recovered from them would be refunded with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The appeals were allowed on 19th October, 1989, (1990(76) S.T.C. 71)2. Before refunds as ordered were made Maharashtra Ordinance IX of 1989 introduced a new section 13-AA into the said Act effective from 1st July, 1982. The said Ordinance also sought to validate recoveries made in pursuance of the old section 13-AA. These petitions were filed to challenge the said ordinance and were amended to challenge Maharashtra Act II of 1990 which replaced it. At the interim stage of the writ petitions the validating provision was stayed, refund as ordered by the Supreme Court was directed and the petitioners were given liberty to pay tax under the new section 13-AA under protest, such payments to be subject to the outcome of the petition and refundable with interest at the rate of 12% per annum in the event of the petitioners succeeding in the petition. The respondents filed appeals against the interim orders. The Division Bench that heard the appeals directed that the writ petitions themselves should be heard and disposed of very expeditiously by a Division Bench. Accordingly, a Division Bench has heard the writ petitions.

4. It is necessary, at the outset to note the provisions of Act No. II of 1990 which replaced, in identical terms, Ordinance IX of 1989, section 1 sets out the short title and states that it shall come into force immediately, sections 2 and 3 read thus: "2 substitution of section 13-AA in Bom. LI of 1959.---For section 13-AA of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), the following section shall be substituted, and shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from the 1st July, 1982, namely:---

"13-AA. (1) Where a dealer, who is liable to pay tax under this Act, purchases any goods specified in Part I of Schedule C, directly or through Commission Agent, from a person who is or is not a Registered dealer and uses such goods in the manufacture of taxable goods, then, unless the goods so manufactured are sold by the dealer, there shall be levied, in addition to the sales tax, paid or payable, if any, or as the case may be, the purchase tax levied or leviable, if any, under the other provisions of this Act in respect of purchases of such goods, a purchase tax at the rate of two paise in the rupee on the purchase price of the goods so used in the manufacture, and accordingly the dealer shall include purchase price of such goods in his turnover of purchases in his return under section 32, which he is to furnish next thereafter.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document