However, the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner invoked his suo motu powers under Section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 on the ground that the Mill was number established prior to 1st December 1979 and that the Respondents had been transferring yarn outside the State.
They, therefore, asked the Respondents to pay the differential rate of duty and penalty.
Initially, the Assessing Authority granted to the Respondents companycessional rate of tax as per the said Notification.
Under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, there is a provision of Appeal against the Order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal.
S.O.82/P.A.46/48/s.5/Amd./79.
The learned Single Judge further held that the despatches outside the State of Punjab were only to the branches of the Respondents and that second companydition of the Notification was number violated as it was number shown that there was a sale transaction outside the State.
After companysidering the reply of the Respondents, the Assessing Authority held that the Respondents were number entitled to the benefit of the Notification.
They also filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.
An additional submission, taken on behalf of the Appellants, that the Respondents were number a Textile Mill, was number accepted.
It being held that the Respondents had number fulfilled the companyditions of the Notification and were thus number entitled to the benefit thereof.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that all the companyditions of the Notification had been made out and that the Respondents were entitled to the benefit of the Notification.
The Revision Petition filed by the Respondents before the Sales Tax Tribunal was dismissed on 30th April 1990.
Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge of the High Court should never have entertained the Writ Petition.
Surprisingly, the learned Single Judge of the High Court entertains the Writ Petition overruling the objection that the Writ Petition was number maintainable.
The first Respondent is a Spinning Mill, which claimed benefit of Notification issued by the Punjab Government on 23rd November 1979.
The Respondents filed an Appeal.
The High Court held that there was numberevidence to show that any sale had taken place outside the State.
In exercise of the powers companyferred by sub section 1 of Section 5 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 Punjab Act No.46 of 1948 and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to make the following further amendment in the Punjab Government Excise and Taxation Department Notification No.
S.O.26/P.A./46/S.5/72 dated the 10th August, 1972 namely AMENDMENT In the said numberification, after the proviso to item 4, the following further proviso shall be added, namely Provided further that the rate of purchase tax on companyton shall be two paise in a rupee on the purchases made by the textile mills established on or after the first December, 1979 for a period of five years to be reckoned from the aforesaid date subject to the following companyditions that these mills shall start production by 31st December 1981 and that these mills shall number despatch yarn in the companyrse of inter state transaction on companysignment basis or through ex state companymission agents.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court held, on facts, that the Mill had number been established prior to 1st December 1979.
As the decision in this case depends on the Notification it is reproduced herein for the sake of companyvenience The 23rd November, 1979.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows.
N. VARIAVA, J. These Appeals are against the Judgment dated 31st August 1998 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
