Punjab Khandsari Udyog and ors. Vs. the Additional Excise and Taxation Officer and Assessing Authority and ors. - Court Judgment
|Court||Punjab and Haryana High Court|
|Case Number||Civil Writ Petition No. 147 of 1970|
|Judge|| S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.,; P.C. Jain and; M.R. Sharma, JJ.|
|Reported in||52STC409(P& H)|
|Appellant||Punjab Khandsari Udyog and ors.|
|Respondent||The Additional Excise and Taxation Officer and Assessing Authority and ors.|
|Appellant Advocate|| M.S. Jain and; I.C. Jain, Advs.|
|Respondent Advocate|| Harbhagwan Singh, Adv. General and; Nirmal Yadav, Additional Adv. General|
|Cases Referred||Sterling Steels & Wires Ltd. v. State of Punjab|
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply..........for the petitioners has however argued that in a case inter partes a full bench of this court in punjab khandsari udyog v. state  30 stc 414 (fb), after considering the observations made by the supreme court in modi spinning and weaving mills' case  16 stc 310 (sc) laid down that the dealer was not liable to pay tax on the gur purchased. the view taken in punjab khandsari udyog's case  30 stc 414 (fb), was considered by a later full bench of this court of which i was a member. that case is reported as sterling steels & wires ltd. v. state of punjab, ilr (1980) ip & h 306 (fb). therein the view taken in punjab khandsari udyog's case  30 stc 414 (fb) was impliedly doubted and the same was not overruled because the bench considering the matter was a co-equal one......
M.R. Sharma, J.
1. The registration certificate granted to the petitioners in the year 1965 entitled them to purchase gur for the manufacture of khandsari. However, in 1963, the sales tax law had been amended. Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, as amended provided that if a dealer purchased goods on the basis of his registration certificate without payment of tax and used them in the manufacture of tax-free goods in the State he was liable to pay tax. The petitioners claim exemption from payment of tax on the ground that the registration certificate entitled them to purchase gur without payment of tax. The Assessing Authority concerned turned down this contention on the basis of the rule laid down in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Punjab  16 STC 310 (SC). The learned counsel for the petitioners has however argued that in a case inter partes a Full Bench of this Court in Punjab Khandsari Udyog v. State  30 STC 414 (FB), after considering the observations made by the Supreme Court in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills' case  16 STC 310 (SC) laid down that the dealer was not liable to pay tax on the gur purchased. The view taken in Punjab Khandsari Udyog's case  30 STC 414 (FB), was considered by a later Full Bench of this Court of which I was a member. That case is reported as Sterling Steels & Wires Ltd. v. State of Punjab, ILR (1980) IP & H 306 (FB). Therein the view taken in Punjab Khandsari Udyog's case  30 STC 414 (FB) was impliedly doubted and the same was not overruled because the Bench considering the matter was a co-equal one. This matter has directly arisen in this case and I am of the view that this case should be decided by a still larger Bench so that the controversy may be set at rest. Let the papers be placed before my Lord the Chief Justice for obtaining suitable orders in that behalf.
In pursuance of the abovesaid order, the Full Bench delivered the following judgment :