According to the firm, it was entitled to so deduct the purchase price under s. 5 2 a vi of the Act.
It is only in Civil Appeal No.
Ultimately, the assessing authority fixed the taxable turn over for the purposes of purchase tax at Rs.
In Civil Appeal No.
141 of 1965 filed by the State was dismissed in Iimine on May 28, 1965.
145 of 1965 filed by the State was dismissed in Iimine on May 27, 1965.
2320 of 1968 the order of assessment is dated February 24, 1964.
182, 96, 127, 141, 145, 149 and 172 of 1965 respectively.
The firm filed in the Punjab High Court Civil Writ No.
196 of 1965 filed by the State was rejected in limine on July 23, 1965.
The learned Single Judge by his order dated January 29, 1965 allowed the writ petition and directed the assessing authority to reconsider and modify the order of assessment in accordance with the law laid down by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The State further pleaded that the stage for levying sales tax in respect of declared goods is indicated under the Act and the firm is liable for payment of purchase tax on the purchase of companyton made by it subject to the proper deductions allowable under s. 5 2 a vi of the Act.
and levied purchase tax on this amount at the rate of 2 per cent.
In Civil Appeal No.
1466 of 1969 that the order of assessment was quashed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
It appears that there was originally an order of assessment passed on June 30, 1962.
Regarding the various deductions claimed by the firm, particularly in respect of the purchase price of unginned companyton, which had been sold to registered dealers, it is number clear from the assessment orders as to how exactly the claim for deductions were either allowed or rejected.
1466 of 1969, the assessing authority had been directed to reconsider and modify the orders of assessment already passed by it.
The, learned Single Judge, by his order dated March 5, 1965heldthat there is numberindication in the order of assessment thatfulldeduction permissible to a dealer under s. 5 2 a vi of the Act, as laid down by the Division Bench, in the above decision,.
Hence, it was pointed out that the assessing authority had acted according to law in allowing the deduction only on the purchase value of companyton sold by the firm.
In Civil Appeal No.
The learned Single Judge by his order dated February 3, 1965 allowed the writ petition following the decision in Patel Cotton Company Private Ltd. 1 and quashed the order of assess 1 1964 15 S.T.C. 865.
Appeals from the judgments and orders dated July 23, May 17, May 28, May 27, May 26, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeals Nos.
1599 of 1963 filed by the assessee was allowed by the learned Single Judge on February 26, 1965 and the assessing authority was directed to modify the order of assessment according to the decision of the High Court.
1467 of 1969, the assessment order is dated March 9, 1964.
The assessee filed Civil Writ No.
Civil Writ No.
As the Excise and Taxation Commissioner of Punjab had given instruction to the assessing authorities to assess companyton in the manner shown in the assessment order, the firm averred that numberuseful purpose will be served by carrying the assessment orders in appeals before the Departmental Authorities.
Civil Writ No.
3,18,993.27 n.p.
In Civil Appeal No.
At the time when the writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, there was already a decision of a Division Bench of the same High Court reported in Patel Cotton Company Private Ltd. v. The State of Punjab and others 1 .
608 of 1964 in the High Court.
The assessee filed Civil Writ No.
Deductions, according to the assessing authority, under s. 5 2 a vi of the Act from the purchase turn over of unginned companyton should be fixed at 1/3rd of the total price paid for the unginned companyton.
2319 and 2320 of 1968 and 1466 to 1470 of 1969.
Civil Writ No.
Charan Das Garg, O.P. Sharma and K. S. Suri, for the res pondent in C.A. No.
1466 of 1969, the assessment order is dated March 10, 1964.
The appellants companytested the, writ petition on various grounds But the material averment, which has to be numbered is to the effect that the assessee was entitled to deduction only on the purchase of companyton sold by it as required under s. 5 2 a vi of the Act and that too on the purchase value of the companymodity sold and number on its sale price.
x of the Letters Patent Act, which was dismissed, in limine, by the Division Bench on July 23, 1965.
The State filed Letters Patent Appeal No.
The assessee filed Civil Writ No.
The assessing authority appears to have proceeded on the basis that out of the total quantity of unginned companyton purchased by the firm, only 1/3rd quantity of the unginned companyton can be companysidered to have been sold as ginned companyton.
It was pleaded that as the levy was unconstitutional, the relief can be obtained only from the High Court and hence its jurisdiction under Arts.
1469 of 1969, the order of assessment is dated March 22, 1963.
2319 of 1968.
810 of 1964.
149 of 1965 filed by the State was dismissed in limine on May 28, 1965.
172 of 1965 filed by the State was dismissed in limine on May 26, 1965.
For the assessment year 1961 62, the firm submitted a return under the Act showing its gross turnover of purchase at Rs.
454 of 1964 and the High Court passed a similar order in his favour on March 5, 1965.
The firms claim before the assessing authority, appears to have been that if three maunds, of kapas is ginned, it gives roughly one maund of ginned companyton, which if disposed of in toto should be equivalent to the purchase price of three maunds of kapas originally purchased.
It was further averred that companyton seeds are different from companyton and the price realised by the sale of the former does number qualify for deduction under the said provision of the Act as the companyton seeds are number the same companymodity as companyton that had been originally purchased.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. These seven appeals, on certificate, are by the State of Punjab, challenging the judgments and orders of the Letters Patent Bench of the Punjab High Court, dismissing in limine the appeals filed by the State, against the decisions of the learned Single Judge, either quashing the orders of assessment of sales tax made by the companycerned Sales Tax Officer or directing the said officers to reconsider the orders and pass fresh orders of assessment.
127 of 1965 filed by the State was dismissed in limine on May 17, 1965.
Civil Appeals Nos.
The Letters Patent Appeal No.
The Letters Patent Appeal No.
The Letters Patent Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
452 of 1964 challenging the order of assessment passed by the Sales tax Officer.
1466, 1467, 1469 and 1470 of 1970 .
1470 of 1969 the order of assessment is dated December 12, 1963.
635 of 1963 filed by the assessee was allowed on February 26, 1965 and the learned Single Judge gave the same direction regarding the assessment Order to be reconsidered and modified.
205 of 1964 filed by the asseesee was allowed by the High Court on January 29, 1965 and similar directions were given to the assessing authority.
The respondent M s Shakti Cotton Company is a partnership firm carrying on business as a registered dealer under the Act.
The Letters Patent Appeal No.
Hardev Singh and Ram Gopal Singla, for respondent in C.A. No.
The assessing authority, Patiala District, took up the assessment proceedings afresh and after an examination of the account books and other vouchers produced by the firm accepted as companyrect the gross turnover returned by the dealer.
1468 of 1968 .
2319 and 2320 of 1968 and C.A. No.
1466 of 1969 .
C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants in As.
2319 of 1968 .
As the nature of the dealings and the approach made by the assessing officers in respect of the respondents, who are different assessees, is the same, it is enough to refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No.
The assessing authority has also proceeded on the basis that the amount realised by the firm by sale of companyton seeds, as a result of ginning, cannot be taken into account for calculating the turn over under s. 5 2 a vi of the Act, as the said material is something different from company ton.
has been granted to the firm.
1466 of 1969 relates to the assessment year 1962 63.
The Letters Patent Appeal No.
C. Mahajan for R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants in As.
2320 of 1968 .
The firm claimed deduction, from its gross turn over, value of the entire quantity of companyton it had purchased.
The assessments that were challenged before the High Court were made under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 Punjab Act No.
The companytroversy related to the assessment to sales tax under the Act, in respect of companyton, which admittedly is an item of declared goods within the meaning of s. 2 cl c read with s. 14 of the Central Sales tax Act, 1956 Act 74 of 1956 hereinafter to be referred as the Central Act .
The grievance of the firm, as is seen from the said writ, is, that the assessing authority disallowed the claim, made by it, for deduction of purchase price of ginned companyton sold to the registered dealers and for inter state trade and companymerce.
In this view, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, and directed the Sales tax Officer to re decide the matter and modify and make an assessment order, in accordance with the law laid down in Patel Cotton Company Private Ltd. 1 .
2320 of 1968 and 1468 of 1969 relate to the assessment years 1960 61 Civil Appeals Nos.
On appeal by the firm, the Appellate Authority by, its order dated February 4, 1963 remanded the matter to the assessing authority for re examination and re consideration of the original order of assessment.
Amongst its other business, the firm purchases kapas or unginned companyton and after ginning, sells companyton and companyton seeds.
Hardev Singh, for respondent in C.A. No.
V. Gupte, Hardev Singh and Ram Gopal Singla, for the respondent in C.A. No.
1468 of 1969 .
226 and 227 of the Constitution was invoked.
XLVI of 1948 hereinafter to be referred as the Act .
231,9 of 1968 and 1467, 1469 and 1470 of 1969 relate to the assessment years 1961 62 and Civil Appeal No.
This amount included the purchase of unginned companyton i.e. Kapas and the sales were shown as having been made to registered dealers and for inter state trade and companymerce.
23,76,452.68 n.p.
1469 of 1969, the order of assessment is is dated June 11, 1963.
The firm had also challenged the order of assessment that the levy of sales tax on companyton, which is an item of declared goods under the Central Act, is illegal and opposed to s. 15 of the Central Act, as numberstage for levy of tax had been fixed.
In Civil Appeal No.
In Civil Appeal No.
The assessment order was passed on September 26, 1963.
The Letters Patent Appeal No.
In all the appeals, certificates have been granted by the High Court.
