9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (11) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ------------- The judgment of the court was delivered by VAIDIALINGAM, J.- These three appeals by the State of Punjab, by special leave, relate to the validity of levy of sales tax on oil-seeds and edible oils under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (46 of 1948) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). In all these appeals the assessee-respondents challenged before the High Court either the orders of assessment proposed to be passed by the assessing authority or declining to grant refund of sales tax already collected during the relevant assessment years. In Civil Appeal No. 1678 of 1969, the respondent is a partnership firm carrying on business in foodgrains, pulses, flour, cotton and oil- seeds, besides extracting oil from sarson. (mustard), toria, etc., at Nabha. The firm is a registered dealer under the Act. In respect of the years 1961-62 and 1962-63, according to the department, the assessee has not paid the full tax as required by section 10(4) of the Act, and hence proceedings were initiated for recovery of the same. The respondent filed Civil Writ No. 214 of 1965 in the Punjab High Court to issue appropriate directions to the assessing authority, not to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm was assessed to sales tax for the years 1958-59 to 1960-61 on July 15, 1961. The firm disputed its liability to pay sales tax on edible oils; and challenging the notification, referred to above, filed Civil Writ No. 2863 of 1965 to give directions to the assessing authority to refund the amount collected from it. The same averments regarding the validity of the notification based upon the decision of the High Court were made in the writ petition. The State took the same stand, as in Civil Writ No. 214 of 1965, and relied on the pendency of the appeal in this court. As there was again an agreement between the parties regarding the nature of the order to be passed, the learned single judge, on September 6, 1967, passed an order similar to the one passed in Civil Writ No. 214 of 1965. Letters Patent Appeal No. 206 of 1968 filed by the State was dismissed in limine. In Civil Appeal No. 1680 of 1969, the respondent is again a partnership firm and a registered dealer carrying on business of extracting oils from sarson and other oil-seeds at Hoshiarpur. The firm was assessed to sales tax for the years 1960-61 to 1962-63 on August 16, 1963. The firm disputed its liability to sales t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration in these appeals: (1) whether the notification No. 3483-E T.54/723(C11) dated August 5, 1954, issued by the State Government is valid; and (2) whether the assessment orders are in conflict with the decision of this court in Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd. Regarding the first point the position arises as follows: Original entry relating to edible oils, exempted from sales tax, which was item 57 in Schedule B of the Act, was as follows: "57. Edible oils produced from sarson, toria and til in ghanis but not in hydrogenated form, e.g., vegetable ghee, vanaspati, etc." In this entry, edible oils produced in whatever manner were exempt from tax. But by the notification dated August 5, 1954, the original entry was deleted and in its place the following entry 57 in Schedule B of the Act was substituted: "57. Edible oils produced from sarson, toria and til indigenous kohlus worked by animal or human agency when sold by the owners of such kohlus only." From the substituted entry it will be seen that edible oils produced by mechanical process will not be eligible for exemption from sales tax. It is this notification that was challenged in Ganga Ram Suraj Parkash [196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry 57, as it existed previously, falls to the ground. As the judgment of the High Court has been exclusively based on its previous decision in Ganga Ram Suraj Parkash [1963] 14 S.T.C. 476., which has been over- ruled by this court, it follows that that part of the judgment and order of the High Court will have to be set aside. But the matter does not end there. We have to deal with the second point, which has already been set out. The question that arises is whether the assessment orders are in conflict with the decision of this court in Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd. [1967] 20 S.T.C. 290 (S.C.); [1967] 3 S.C.R. 577. We have already referred to the fact that the assessees were permitted by the High Court to amend their writ petitions by raising an attack on the levy of purchase tax under the Act, as it stood on April 1, 1960, on purchases of oil-seeds, on the ground that such levy is opposed to the provisions of the Central Act. That contention has, no doubt, not been considered by the High Court. But in view of the decision of this court in Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd. [1967] 20 S.T.C. 290 (S.C.); [1967] 3 S.C.R. 577., the contention of the assessees in this regard will have to be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
