Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.
1. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered dealer and deals in vegetable ghee. It submitted Its return for the assessment year 1966-67 in which it claimed deductions on account of sale of vegetable ghee purchased by it from unregistered dealers. These were allowed by the Assessing Authority. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner under Section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He held that sales of vegetable ghee valued at Rs. 38,350 were wrongly exempted from the payment of tax under the proviso to Sub-section (1-A) of Section 5 of the Act. Consequently, an additional demand was created by him against the petitioner for Rs. 2,301. The petitioner went up in revision before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, who relying on Mulkh Raj Nand Lal v. Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab 1971 R.L.R. 539, affirmed the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner has come up under Article 226 of the Constitution to this Court praying for quashing the orders of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the Tribunal (annexures B and D respectively).
2. The only question for decision in the writ petition is, whether the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax on the ghee purchased by him from an unregistered dealer. The learned Tribunal, while deciding the matter placed reliance on Mulk Raj Nand Lal's case 1971 R.L.R. 539, wherein the learned single Judge took the view that the selling dealer could be exempted if he had purchased the goods from a registered dealer and not from an unregistered dealer. A Letters Patent appeal was filed against the aforesaid decision and the Division Bench accepted it. It is reported as Mulkh Raj Nand Lal, Bazar Gandawala, Amritsar v. Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, Patiala  33 S.T.C. 42. In that case, the assessee was a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. He purchased from the unregistered dealers vegetable ghee manufactured by a company, which was a registered dealer under the Act. The assessee produced the certificates given by the unregistered dealers that the goods that were the subject-matter of the sale had suffered tax at the hands of the company and that it was from that company that the unregistered dealers had purchased the goods. The question arose whether the assessee was liable to pay sales tax on the sale of those goods to consumers. It was held that the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax on the sale of goods to the consumers. The facts of that case were identical with the present case and the ratio therein will fully cover this case.
3. Mr. D. N. Rampal, counsel for the State, wanted to create a distinction on facts between the two cases. No such dispute was, however, raised before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the Tribunal in its judgment said that the facts were not in dispute. It decided the matter by placing reliance on the single Bench decision in Mulkh Raj Nand Lal's case 1971 R.L.R. 539. This decision was, however, reversed in appeal as stated above. In the circumstances, I do not find any force in this submission of the learned counsel for the State. In my view, the judgments of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the Tribunal are liable to be quashed.
4. For the reasons recorded above, I accept the writ petition and quash the impugned orders, annexures B and D. No order as to costs.