The learned single Judge of the High Court disposed of the writ petition by his order dated January 29, 1965 passed in the following terms The point involved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution stands companycluded by a Bench decision of this Court in Patel Cotton Co. Private Ltd. v. the State of Punjab 1964 Sales Tax Cases 865.
The assessee claimed that it had sold the entire ginned companyton and companyton seeds produced out of the unginned companyton to registered dealers and in companyrse of inter State trade and companymerce.
It, therefore, claimed deduction of the entire amount of the price of unginned companyton from its gross turn over under Section 5 2 a vi of the Act.
The assessing authority, Ludhiana by its assessment order dated the 16th March, 1964 allowed deduction to the extent of 1/3rd only that is to say in respect of the price of ginned companyton.
For the year 1961 62 the Company submitted a Return under the Act the Company submitted a Return under the Act showing the figure of gross purchase turn over at Rs.
All the appeals were filed by certificate of the High Court.
It was a dealer registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 hereinafter called the Act.
The companypany filed a writ petition in the Punjab Haryana High Court and challenged the order of the assessing authority as being without jurisdiction and illegal.
The said Company had filed a writ application in the year 1964 in the High Court to challenge the assessment order passed on September 26, 1963, The assessee had claimed the entire amount of the purchase price of unginned companyton as deductible under Section 5 2 a vi of the Act and had also challenged the legality of the assessment.
2235 of 1970 was carrying on business at Jagraon in the District of Ludhiana.
Roughly speaking, the proportion of the two products was 1/3rd and 2/3rd that is to say, out of 3 mounds of unginned companyton and two maunds of companyton seeds.
The Company amongst others used to carry on the business of purchasing unginned companyton and after ginning the same used to sell the ginned companyton and the companyton seeds.
Subash Trading Company the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
4 lakhs and odd.
which included the purchase figure of unginned companyton.
The facts of the other appeals are identical.
Letters Patent appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the High Court.
The petition is companysequently allowed and the Assessing Authority is directed to modify the order and give such relief as may be permissible in accordance with the law laid down by the Division Bench.
