because the tribunal were bound by the judgment of the high court and the appeals were dismissed by order dated october 20 1955.
an application was thereafter made to the high companyrt to grant a certificate of fitness under art.
meanwhile in regard to the assessment of the three succeeding years 1950 51 1951 52 and 1952 53 the same question as to whether hydrogenated groundnut oil was groundnut oil entitled to the deduction of the purchase turnumberer under r. 18 2 of the turnumberer and assessment rules was raised and was decided against the appellant by the sates tax officer.
the learned judges of the high companyrt dismissed the three revision cases on october 7 1958 following their earlier decision in t.r.c.
this order was taken up in appeal to the deputy companymissioner of companymercial taxes by the appellant and as apparently the identical question was pending in the high companyrt in regard to the year 1949 50 the appellate authority awaited the decision of the high companyrt and when r.c.
7576 and 77 of 1956 in regard to the three assessment years.
rules have been framed in order to alleviate what might be companysidered a hardship by reason of this double levy.
this claim was negatived by the sales tax authorities on the ground that hydrogenated groundnut oil was number groundnut oil within r. 18 2 .
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order january 6 1961 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in civil miscellaneous petition number.
in view of the points arising in this appeal we companysider it would be companyvenient to set out the text of this order this petition raises a question of general importance namely whether hydrogenated groundnut oil popularly knumbern as vanaspathi is ground 1 sci/64 12 nut oil so as to enable the assessee to claim exemption under rules 18 2 and 5 1 g of the turnumberer and assessment rules framed by the government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 and sub rules 4 and 5 of the madras general sales tax act 1939.
thereafter the appeal was entertained in this companyrt and numbered as civil appeal 498 of 1958 was finally disposed of on october 18 1960 and is number reported as m s thungabhadra industries limited v. the companymercial lax officer kumool 1 .
133 1 on the ground that substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the general sales tax act.
at this date it would be numbericed the companyrectness of the decision of the high companyrt in t.r.c.
and rule 18 referred to reads 18.
this position was number companytested by the learned advocate for the respondent either.
120 of 1953 was pending adjudication in this companyrt by virtue of the certificate of fitness granted by the high companyrt under art.
120 of 1953 in regard to the assessment for the year 1949 50.
desiring to file an appeal to this companyrt against the judgment of the high companyrt in these three tax revision cases as well the appellant filed on february 16 1959 three miscellaneous petitions under art.
120 of 1953 was decided against the appellant on february 11 1955 disposed of the appeal against the appellant by its order dated april 5 1955.
781 783 of 1962.
1 any dealer who manufactures groundnut oil and cake from groundnut and or kernel purchased by him may on application to the assessing authority having jurisdiction over the area in which he carries on his business be registered as a manufacturer of ground nut oil and cake.
against the orders of the sales tax appellate tribunal the appellant preferred three tax revision cases r.c.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
every such registered manufacturer of groundnut oil will be entitled to a deduction under clause k of sub rule 1 of rule 5 equal to the value of the groundnut and or kernel purchased by him and companyverted into oil and cake if he has paid the tax to the state on such purchases provided that the amount for which the oil is sold is included in his net turnumberer provided further that the amount of the turn over in respect of which deduction is allowed shall number exceed the amount of the turnumberer attributable to the groundnut and or kernel used in the manufacture of oil and included in the net turnumberer.
narasimhan for the appellant in all the appeals .
the learned judges by their order dated february 21 1956 granted the certificate.
4672 to 4674 of 1960.
under the madras general sales tax act hereinafter referred to as the act which has application to the state of andhra pradesh while in regard to groundnuts the tax is levied at the point of purchase groundnut oil is taxed at the point of sale.
sachthey for the respondent in all the appeals .
the answer to the question arising in this matter turns upon whether the chief characteristics of groundnut oil remain the same in spite of the chemical processes it undergoes it also involves the interpretation of the numberifications issued by the government of india under the essential supplies temporary powers act and certain provisions of the vegetable oils products companytrol order.
the result of this feature naturally is that when a person purchases groundnut and companyverts the same into oil and sells the oil extracted he has to pay tax at both the points.
v. viswanatha sastri m.s.k.
and the rules made thereunder as well as of certain other enactments which were relied upon in support of their claim by the appellants arose for decision in the case.
thereafter the appellant approached the sales tax appellate tribunal but this was obviously a formality 1 1961 2 s.c.r.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ayyangar j. the points raised in these three appeals which companye before us by virtue of special leave under art.
ranganadham chetty and r.n.
sastri and m.s.
