KISHAN SATYANARAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also dispose of Misc. Petition No. 1695 of 1982. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution involve the construction of entry No. 1 (i) in Part V of Schedule II to the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The petitioners contend that puffed rice and beaten rice, which are also known as murmura, lal and poha, are taxable under the aforesaid entry at the rate of 3 per cent and not under the residuary entry in Part VI at the rate of 10 per cent as contended by the department.

(2.) THE period involved in both the petitions is from 1st November, 1978, to 21st October, 1979. In Misc. Petition No. 259 of 1983, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Durg, by order dated 30th November, 1982, assessed the petitioner on sales of murmura and poha at the rate of 10 per cent. He also assessed sales of paddy husk called konda at the rate of 4 per cent. In the other petition (Misc. Petition No. 1695 of 1982), the Additional Sales Tax Officer, Durg, by order dated 21st June, 1982, assessed sales tax on murmura, lal and poha at the rate of 10 per cent. Some other persons in this context wrote to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore, requesting that sales of puffed rice and beaten rice should be taxed at 3 per cent and not at 10 per cent but the Commissioner in April, 1981 and January, 1982, vide annexures A and B in Misc. Petition No. 259 of 1983, ordered otherwise and these orders were circulated to the assessing officers of the department.

(3.) THE question involved is a pure question of law and being of general importance we do not insist upon the alternative remedy of appeal or revision open to the petitioners. It would be convenient not only to the petitioners and other similar dealers but also to the department that the matter be disposed of by this Court finally. For this reason, we do not accept the objection in the return that the petitioners should have availed of the normal remedy available under the Act of going up in appeal or revision before coming to this Court under Article 226.