J 1 v. St at eofPunj aband ot hers

I n supportbfhis subm issionlearned counsel has placedreliance SEEMA RAWAT 2015.10.16 13: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh on t wo Full Bench of t his Court rendered in t he cases of Mls JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 CWPNo9019 of2005 7 t I iidoSwiss Tim e Lt d v Um rao and ot hers 1981 PLR 335 and Mls KulbhushanKum ar and Col St at eofPuniaband anot her 1983 PLR 768 1 Q 0 U X t D Z 2 0 I rS Z Per cont ra Mr PlCJain and Mr Am ol Rat t an leam ed Addit ionalAdvocat e Generals Punj abhaVe arguedt hat t he m at t er lS no longerresm int egraas t he quest ionhad fallen for considerat ion of Honble t heSuprem eCourt in t he case of Jagat iit SugarMills lpralAccordingt o t he learned counsel t he sugarcanesold by t he canegrowerst hem selvest o t he pet it ionerm ill t he sugar m anufact uresm ay not be t o t ax under Sect ion 4 B but would be so underSect ion4 11 read wit h Sect ion 6 The aforesaidview has been considered by a 5e JudgeBench of t his Court in t he case of Morinda Cooperat iveSugarMills Lt d v AssessingAut horit vand ot hers 1995999STC 468 Followingt he View t aken by t he Honble Suprem eCourt in Jagat iit SugarMills supralt he Full Bench held t hatt he of sugarcane is liable t o pay t ax The leam ed St at e Counselhavealso arguedt hat even at t he t im e when t he j udgem entin Jagat iit Sugar Mills case and Morinda Cooperat iveSugar Millscase was delivered t he sugar m ills have been payingpurchaset ax on t he of sugar cane from t he cane growersundert he 1953 Act Thus t he argum entis t hatm erelybecauseaft er t he Bihar Finance Act Bihar SugarCane Regulat ionof Supply andPurchase 9Act 1981 has com e would not lead t o reopening t he quest ionwhich has alreadybeen set t led Anot her subm ission m ade by t he learned St at e Counsel is t hat t here is not hingin Art icle 265 of t he Const it ut ionwhich m aylindicat e t hat t herecould be no double t axat ion I n t hat regardreliance ha6been placedon t he j udgem entof Honble t he SEEMA RAWAT 2015.10.16 13: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Court in t he c4seof Arvinder Singhv St at e of PuniabAI R 1979 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 44 CWP No 9019of2005 8 1 1 I 1 1 1r U Z 2 C X a3 Z I le SC 321 I t has been arguedt hat even if on t he sam e subj ectm at t er t he legislat urechooses t o levyt ax t wice t here lS n0 inherentinvalidit yin t he fiscal advent uresave where ot her prohibit ionsexist The aforesaidview has also been followed byHonble t he Court in t hecase ofRadhakisan Rat hi v Addl Collect or Drug and ot hers AI R 1995 SC 1540 Replyingt o t he ot her argum ent sleam ed St at e counselhave point edout in Jagat iitSugarMills case was renderedbya 3e JudgeBench whereas in Govind SLar Mills case supralhas been rendered by a Bench I t has beensubm it t edt hat Full Bench of t his Court in t he cases of KulbhushanKum ar and I ndoSwiss supra9 do not advance t he case of t he in as m uch as bot h t he Full Benches superiorCourt Accordingt o t he learnedcounselt he refer t o conflict of colual Benches of oft he Full Bench would applyif t he colual Benchesof t he superiorCoun have delivered t he conflict ing whereas lll t he presentcase t he j udgem entcoveringt he issue has beendeliveredby a 3JudgeBench and t hefore it is not open t o t his Court t o concludet hat purchaset ax under Sect ion l9 oft he PGST Act 1948or 2005Act are not payable The first quest ionwliich would arise for det erm inat ionis whet her Bench of t he Honble Suprem eCoun rendered lI l t he case of Jagat iit SugarMills lpra9is bindingOn t hepart iesI n t he aforesaidcase t he quest ionof law was posedin para 40f t he ln nam elywhet hert he sugar m ill was liable t o pay purchaset ax on t he sugarcane purchased1by it from t he growers of t he sugarcane I n a cat egoricalanswer t o lheaforesaidquest ionit has beenheld t hat Sect ion 4 levyof purchaset ax on all sales JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document l9 of t he PGST Act 1948 SEEMA RAWAT 2015.10.16 13: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh 79 1 1 0 CWPNo9019 of2005 9 Once t he aforesaid in t he cat egoricalt erm s lays down t hatpurchaset ax is leviable under Sect ion 4619t hen it is well nigh for us t o say t hatsuch a t ax cannot be I eviedon t he groundt hat PGSTAct 1948 is a st at ut e of generalcharact er which deals wit h sale or t ax in respectof all goodswhereas t he 1953 Act is a specialAct which deals wit h all aspect sincludinglevy of purchaset ax on sugar cane The pet it ionerhas convassed for t he cont rary view on t he basis of t he rendered by2 JudgeBench of t he Honble Suprem eCourt in t he case of Govind SugarMills rendered supral The aforesaid j udgem enthas been Bihar Finance Act 1981 and Bihar Regulat ionof Supplyand Purchase 1 Act 1981 by holdingt hat bot h t he Act s would operat ein t he sam e Oeld The principlefollowed by t he Honble Suprem eCourt is t hat t he Act beinga specialAct t o all aspect sof cont rol of t he sugarcaneas well as levy of t ax has t o be t he Finance Act which em power t he St at et o levyall com m ercial t axes whereast he sugarcaneAct t he levy of purchaset ax only on sugarcane Such a course would not be available t o us as t he speciOcAct which is t o t he pet it ionernam elyPGST Act 1948hasbeen by a 3 JudgeBench ln t he case of Jagat iit SugarMills case Furt herm ore we would prefert he adopt edby t he Honble Suprem eCourt for PGST Act 1948 which is in quest ionbefore US The j udgem entof Govind Sugar Mills supralhas em ergedout of different st at ut e I t is needless t o t hat t he by t he Honble Suprem eCourt is a law m C O 0 I lI I Z 2 C2 c8 Oo Z declared in respect of t he field occupiedby it which is bindingon all SEEMA RAWAT 2015.10.16 13: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Court swit hin t he t errit oryof I ndia includingt he HighCourt s I n t hat regard JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 t CWP No 9019of2005 10 1 t he HonbleSuprem eCourt St at eofBom bav AI R 1955 SC 123 Even ot herwiset he decision of3 Judge in t he case of Behram Khurshid Pesikack v Bench in Jaat iitSugarMills case 6supralhas t o be followed because t hat decision is by a largerBench t han t he one decidingt he Govind Sugar J 1r 0 0 X I Z 2 r r25 Millss case supralThe 3 JudgeBench t he PGST Act 1948 which is t o t he decision is also under Therefore in our viewt here is no possibilit ywhat soever t o reopen t he quest ionby opining t hatt he provisionsof Sect ion 41 of t he PGST Act 1948 would not apply andt hose of 1953 Act alone would applyOn t he basis of t he aforesaid t he writ pet it ionsare liable t o be dism issed On account of t he binding availablein t he form of of Jagat iit SugarMills case ipralwe are not dealingwit h any oft he cont ent ionsraised byt he which could have beenot herwise exam inedin t he lightof t he observat ionsm ade in Govind SugarMills case Z As a sequelt o t he above discussion all t he writ pet it ionsfail andt he sam e are dism issed A copy oft his orderbe placedon t he Sle ofconnect edcases 9 MlvKum ar9 Judge Judge 190014444040011111000001004060400091990090ee00000400e04644040001401ee00e0000940416a0 20 l2010 4 CWPN020300of2005Mls The Bat ala Coop SugarMiUs Lt d v St at e SEEMA RAWAT 2015.10.16 13: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh ofPunj aband ot hers CWPNo998 of2C06 PicadilySugarand Allied I ndust ries v St at eof Punj aband ot hers JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document