R.M. Sahai, J.
1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court:
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the turnover of yarn in dispute was taxable under Notification No. 2934/X-902 dated 1st August, 1958
2. The assessee, a dealer in Moradabad, was holding stocks of yarn on 1st August, 1958. Admittedly, yarn was taxable at single point before 1st August, 1958. It was taxable either in the hands of importers or the manufacturers. The State Government issued a notification on 1st August, 1958, as a result of which, the turnover in respect of cotton yarn became taxable at the point of sale by the dealer to the consumer. The Judge (Revisions) has recorded a finding that the stock of cotton yarn, which was with the assessee, was sold by it to the consumer. He was of the view that it was not taxable and the notification dated 1st August, 1958, did not alter the position as rights had accrued to the assessee prior to the issue of the notification. He drew support for his view from the decision given by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Meerut, in Revision No. 830 of 1963, Harsaran Das and Sons, Moradabad. Mr. v. D. Singh, appearing for the department, has brought to our notice that the case of Harsaran Das came up before this court and was decided by a Division Bench on 2nd January, 1969. We have gone through the judgment in Sales Tax Reference No. 539 of 1966 [Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Harsaran Das and Sons, Moradabad) and we find that it was held by a Division Bench that cotton yarn held by the assessee in stock on 1st August, 1958, was liable to tax on the point of sale by a dealer to the consumer by virtue of Notification No. 2934/X-902(T) dated 1st August, 1958.
3. There was some doubt created in our mind whether the stock of cotton yarn held by the assessee on 1st August, 1958, in the case of Harsaran Das had suffered the tax in the hands of manufacturer or importer or not. We sent for the paper book. After looking into it we are satisfied that in that case also the cotton had suffered tax at the hands of the importer and manufacturer. The facts in both the cases were more or less identical. We also agree with the reasoning given by the Division Bench that cotton became taxable under Section 3-AA from 1st August, 1958, as a fresh charge has been created by Section 3-AA and the point on which the tax is leviable is different from Section 3-A. In the circumstances, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the department and against the assessee by. saying that the turnover of yarn was taxable under Notification No. 2934/X-902 dated 1st August, 1958. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.