HARBANS LAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule is directed against the Punjab State through the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, calling upon them to show cause why the order made against the petitioner requiring him to pay sales tax in regard to sales of maida for the years 1949-50 and 1950-51 should not be quashed.

(2.) THE petitioner is a dealer in wheat flour. In 1942 on his enquiry he was informed by the then Financial Commissioner that the expression "wheat flour" used in Section 5(1)(b) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act of 1941 should be construed according to its dictionary meaning so as to include maida, suji and rawa. The petitioner again wrote to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jullundur, on the 19th of November, 1951, to clarify whether maida and atta came within the term "wheat flour" or not. To this the reply of this officer is dated the 24th of November, 1951, in which he said that maida and atta were both exempt from the sales tax. The gentleman who wrote this letter is B. L. Ahuja.

(3.) THE petitioner submits that this is a case which is not covered by the rule laid down by this Court in Dharam Chand Kishore Chand v. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner ([1953] 4 S.T.C. 1; A.I.R. 1953 Punjab 27), nor by the rule which we have laid down today in Civil Writ No. 390 of 1952 (Since reported as Khandari Oil Mills, Jullundur v. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner [1953] 4 S.T.C. 367), but falls within the rule laid down in V. N. Wanchoo and Others v. The Collector of Delhi (54 P.L.R. 206). The Excise and Taxation Commissioner on the 21st of December, 1951, issued a general instruction in which he stated that maida and suji are not included in wheat flour and are therefore taxable under the Act and he instructed his subordinates that they should apply this interpretation to their orders of assessment. He has therefore precluded himself from giving an unbiased hearing and deciding the revision petition of the petitioner. And in spite of the fact that the revision petition of the petitioner was filed in May, 1952, it has not yet been heard.