PARDEEP TRADERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of a bunch of petitions identical question of law and facts. It may be mentioned that in CWP No. 12906 of 1992 the dealer-petitioner has straightaway come to this Court challenging the notice issued by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner invoking his suo motu powers under Section 21(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, 'the Act'). However, in the remaining petitions, the dealerpetitioner has approached this Court after exhausting the remedy of appeal provided under the Act, challenging the orders passed by the Assessing Authority, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) and the Presiding Officer, Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), in respect of different assessment years Facts are being referred from CWP No. 12804 of 1992.CWP No. 12804 of 1992 & connected petitions 2

(2.) The petitioner-firm is a registered dealer under the 'Act' as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the CST Act'), carrying on the business of oil seeds including cotton seeds and cotton seed oil of edible grade. During the course of its business the petitioner effected sale within and outside the State of Punjab. On 4.5.1989, the Assessing Authority finalised the assessment of tax in respect of the assessment year 1981-82 and sale tax was levied on the cotton seed oil at the rate of 4% instead of 1% as per notification dated 11.1.1979 issued by the State of Punjab (P-1). The petitioner challenged the order dated 4.5.1989 by filing an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division-respondent No. 2. In the appeal it was contended that the Assessing Authority has erred in holding that the cotton seed oil sold by the petitioner is not edible oil despite the fact that the petitioner had proved that the cotton seed oil sold by it falls within the range of edible oil and, thus, entitled to the concessional rate of tax @ 1% as per notification dated 11.1.1979. On 22.7.1991, the appeal was dismissed by holding that the cotton seed oil as such is not edible oil nor is known as edible oil in common parlance. The Appellate Authority has further found that the petitioner was not able to prove that the cotton seed oil sold by it was of edible range and it was refined by it or by the dealer from whom it has made the purchases. It has been specifically noticed that the petitioner is a trader only having no refinery with it. Thus, it has been concluded that the Assessing Authority was justified in levying tax @ 4% instead of 1% (P-3). The petitioner further filed an appeal under Section 9(2) of the CST Act read with Section 20(2) of the Act before the Tribunal. On 31.3.1992, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal upholding the orders of the authorities below (P-4).

(3.) It is pertinent to mention here that on 11.1.1979, the State of Punjab issued a notification under Section 8(5) of the CST Act to the following effect: