This amounts to a handsome companycession to the dealers and Government except that, in return, every companyperation shall be shown by the dealers of the assessing authorities in the matter of the assessment of the tax.
The appellants then filed on February 8, 1956 a petition under Art.
A certificate was, however, granted to the appellants and the present appeal has been filed.
The petition under Art.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 7, 1959, of the Punjab High Court in L.P.A. No.
On January 23, 1956, the appellants received a numberice from the Excise and Taxation Officer, Rohtak, calling upon them to produce their account books.
The Divisional Bench, which heard the appeal, agreed with the judgment appealed from, and dismissed the appeal.
226 was heard by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab High Court, who held that the orders of Government were entirely in accordance with law, that the East Punjab Sales Tax Act, in so far as it related to the sale of manufactured tobacco was number repealed by the Tobacco Vend Fees Act, and that sales tax on manufactured tobacco was payable from April 1, 1954 to September 26, 1954, in view of the fact that the exemption was made on September 27, 1954, and would operate from the latter date.
The second was that the State Government by its assurance in the Press Note of August, 1954, had estopped itself from reversing its policy and claming the sales tax up to the date of the Notification.
Two companytentions were raised in the forefront before the High Court, by the appellants.
Against the decision of the learned Judge dismissing the writ petition, an appeal under Letters Patent was filed.
9 of 61.
In June, 1954, the State Government issued a Press Note by which it was intended to companyvey to the dealers that though the Tobacco Vend Fees Act had companye into force from April 1, 1954, it was number intended to levy both the sales tax as well as the fee for any period.
427 E T Ch 54/369 , by which the State Government had given numberice, as required by law, of its intention to add the said item in the schedule of exemptions.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
December, 5.
This Notification was preceded by a Notification of May 7, 1954 No.
M. Sikri, Advocate General, Punjab, B.K. Khanna and P.D. Menon, for the respondents.
HIDAYATULLAH, J. The appellants are a firm of general merchants which sells, among other goods manufactured tobacco as defined in the Punjab Tobacco Vend Fees Act, 1954 12 of 1954 , which came into force in the State of Punjab from April 1, 1954.
The firm is also a registered dealer under s. 7 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and till the end of March, 1954, was paying sales tax on manufactured tobacco also.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P.L. Vohra, for the appellants.
The Judgment of Sinha J., Hidayatullah, Shah and Mudholkar JJ.,
Indeed, the firm paid sales tax on manufactured tobacco, also for the next quarter ending on June 30, 1954, but did number pay in the succeeding quarter in view of certain events, to which a detailed reference will be made presently.
86 of 1956.
On September 27, 1954, the State Government issued a Notification No.
was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. Kapur, J., delivered a separate judgment.
The following extract from the Press Note of August, 1955 may be read here In companyformity with the press numbere issued in June, 1954, and in view of the facts explained above, Government have number decided that sales tax on tobacco shall be levied for the year 1954 55 before the 27th September, 1954 only, the date on which tobacco was included in the schedule of exemptions appended to the General Sales Tax Act.
The appellants as well as other dealers of manufactured tobacco similarly affected, made representations on the basis of the Press Note of August 2, 1954, but without success.
