9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (11) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lour, 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 assess the firm to sales tax in respect of the purchase of oil-seeds and sales of edible oils made by the firm during the years 1961-62 and 1962-63. According to the assessee, the notification issued by the State Government, No. 3483-E T-54/723(CH) dated August 5, 1954, by which edible oils produced in ghanis had been made liable to payment of sales tax, is invalid as held by the Division Bench of the High Court in its decision reported in Ganga Ram Suraj Parkash v. The State of Punjab [1963] 14 S.T.C. 476. The High Court declined to grant certificate of fitness and the special leave application filed by the State before this Court was also dismissed oh January 27, 1964. The decision in G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed, she 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. 7. 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 tax on edible oils; and challenging the notification issued by the State Government, referred to above, filed Civil Writ No. 565 of 1965 in the High Court for similar reliefs as made in the connected petitions. The State contested this writ petition also on the same grounds as referred to above. In view of the agreement between the parties, the High Court again passed on September 6, 1967, an order, similar to the one passed in Civil Writ No. 214 of 1965. Letters Patent Appeal No. 207 of 1968 filed by the State was dismissed in limine. 8. At this stage it may be mentioned that though in the writ petition, as originally filed, an attack was made only on the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 13. 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 [1963] 14 S.T.C. 476, before the High Court on several grounds. The High Court in Ganga Ram Suraj Parkash [1963] 14 S.T.C. 476 held that the notification was invalid. In this connection, the High Court has also relied on the provisions of the Act, as it originally stood, as well as to the provisions of the Essential Goods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax on Sale or Purchase) Act, 1952 (Central Act 52 of 1952). This Act 52 of 1952 was repealed by Section 16 of the Central Act on December 21, 1956. The repealing section came into force on January 5, 1957. The High Court has also referred to the unamended Article 286(3) of the Constitution. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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]3SCR577 , the contention of the assessees in this regard will have to be accepted. But it is not clear from the assessment orders or the record whether and at what stage the purchase tax has been levied in respect of oil-seeds. In fact, it appears from the grounds taken by the State in the special leave petitions that the articles (which will include both oil-seeds and edible oils) are declared goods. On this matter, without further materials, it is not possible for us to express any opinion. 17. Even in the applications filed before the High Court for grant of certificate, as also in the grounds raised before this Court, the State has specifically referred to the Ordinances Nos. 1 and 12 of 1967 issued by the Governor of Punjab, in view of the decision of this Court in Bhawani Cot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
