I NTHE GH COURT OF I AB v. St at eofPunj aband ot hers

learned counsel have addressedargum ent son behalf of t he pet it ionersTheir subm issionis inspiredby t he j udgm entof Honble t he Court in Govind SuaarMillss case lpral Theyhave arguedt hat 1953 Act beinga specialenact m ent forlevy t ax exclusivelyon sugarcane also deals wit h of product ionsupplyand dist ribut ion of sugar cane Accordingt o t he learned counsel it would overeride t he provisionsof PGST Act 1948 or even t he 2005 Act I t has beensubm it t ed t hat bot h t he PGST Act 1948 and 2005 Act areneral Act s which provides for collect ion of coercial t axes on sale and purchaseof all goods whereas 1953 Act deals only wit h t he purchaseof sugar cane Placing reliance on various paras of t he j udgem entrendered in t he case of Govind Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document case s lpra9it has been subm it t ed t hat bot h t he Act s have Anit a Sugar Millss 2014.02.18 16: 09 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh 36 I X1 r 1 rX 11 1e 54r 11ih 1 1 h 14i p w C41 0 0 0 Z C c8 Z Qm CWP No 9019of2005 6 been fram ed in exercise of legislat ivepowers derived from Ent ry54 of List I I of 7 Schedule and t herefore t he 1953 Act would govem t he levyof purchaset ax as it ls a spe6ialAct Theyhave also referred t o t he st at em ent of obj ect sand reasons wliich deals specifit allywit h t he purchaseof sugar t o prot ect t he int erest of t he cane growers Referringt o t he reasoning adopt edby a Division Beochof t he Pat naHighCourt in New I ndia Sugar Mills Lt d and anot her v St at e of Bihar and ot hers 1998 1091STC 394 which has been reversed t n Govind Sugar MiI lss case supra9leam ed Counsel havepoint edout t hat no doublet axat ion could be j ust ifiedon t he sam e com m odit yor person bylevyingt he sam e under different enact m ent s wit hout repealingt he ot her The Division Bench of t he Pat na HighCourt in New I ndia SugarMillss case supralhast akent heview t hatt wo t axat ionon t he sam e or person could be im posedby different enact m ent s which has been reversed Accordingt o t he learnedcounsel j ust ifledbykeepingin view t hedifferentobj ect sofbot h t he st at ut es it cannot be I t has been furt her subm it t edt hat j udgem entof Honble t he Court in Jagat iit SugarMills case supra9alt houghhas been renderedby a 3JudgeBench and t he in Govind SugarMillscase SUPralhas been rendered by a 2JudgeBench yet t he j udgem entwhich appearst o lay down t he law m ore and accurat elyand t hereforeit has t o be followed for t he view t aken byt he Honble Suprem e Court in Govind Su2ar Mills case supral Mr Set hi has subm it t ed t hat earlier j udgem entrendered in Jagat iitSugarMillscase supra9has failed t o t ake int o account t he provisionsof t he specialenact m ent 1953 Act I n supportof his subm ission learned counsel has placedreliance Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document on t wo Full Bench j t dgem ent sof t his Court rendered in t he cases of Ms Anit a 2014.02.18 16: 09 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh 1 4X 0 0 t D Z 2 Lr d5 Z e 37 11 1 CWP No9019 of2005 I ndo Swiss Tim e Lt d 7 0 Ve and ot hers 1981 PLR 335 and Mls Kulbhushan Kum ar and Co vI St at eofPuniab and anot her 1983 PLR 768 Per cont ra Mr PlCJain and Mr Am ol Rat t an leam ed Addit ional Advocat e Punj abhaVearguedt hat t he m at t er lS no longer as t he quet ionhad fallen for considerat ion of Honble t he Suprem eCourt in t he case ofJagat iitSugarMills supra Accordingt o t he learnedcounsel t he sugart anesold by t he cane growers t hem selvest o t he pet it ionerm ill or t he sugar m anufact uresm ay not be excigablet o purchaset ax under Sect ion4 B but would be so excigableunder Sect ion 4 19 read wit h Sect ion 6 The aforesaidView has been consideredby a 5 JudgeBench of t his Court in t he case of Morinda Cooperat iveSugarMills Uv Vlew Assessin Aut horit yand ot hers 1995 STC 468 Followingt he t aken by t he Honble Suprem eCourt in Jagat iitSugar Mills supra9t he FUll Bench held t hat t he purchaserof sugar cane 1S liable t o pay purchaset ax The learnedSt at e Counsel havealso arguedt hat even at t he t im e when t he in Jagat iit Sum r Mills and Morinda COerat ive SugarMillscase j pralwas deliveredt he sugar m ills have been payingpurchaset ax on t he purchaseof sugar cane from t he cane growersunder t he 1953 Act Thus t he argum entis t hatm erelybecauseaft er t he Bihar Finance Act Bihar SugarCane 2egulat ionof Supply and Purchase 9Act 1981 has com e would not necessarilylead t o reoening t he quest ionwhich has alreadybeenset t led Anot her subm issionm ade by t he learned St at e Counel is t hat t here lS not hingin Art icle 265 of t he Const it ut ion which m ay indicat e t hat t here could be no double t axat ion I n t hat regardreliance has been placedon t he j udgem entof HonbI e t he Suprem eCourt in t he c2se of Arvinder Singh v St at e of PuniabAlR 1979 Anit a 2014.02.18 16: 09 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 38 4 CWP No019 of2005 8 1 1 1 4 1r 0 0 I t D Z r c8 Z SC 321 I t has been arguedit hat even if on t he sam e subj ectm at t er t he legislat urechooses t o levy t ax t wice t here is no in t he fiscal advent uresave where ofherprohibit ionsexist The aforesaidview has also been followed by Honbl t he Suprem eCourt in t he case of Radhakisan Rat hi v Addl Collect or Drund ot hers AI R 1995 SC 1540 Replyingt o t he ot her argum ent slearned St at e counsel have point edout t hat j udgem entin Jagat iitSugarMills case was renderedby a 3 JudgeBench whereasj udgem ent111Govind Sugar Mills case supra9has been rendered by a 2JudgeBench I t has been subm it t ed t hat Full Bench oft his Court in t he cases ofKulbhushan Kum ar and I ndo Swiss Lsupral do not advance t he case of t he pet it ionerin as m uch as bot h t he Full Benches specificallyrefer t o conflict superiorCourt Accordingt o t he leam ed counsel t he Benches of oft he Full Bench would dpplyif t he coequalBenches of t he superiorCourt have delivered t he conflict ing whereas in t he present case t he j udgem entcoveringt he issue has been delivered by a 3TudgeBench and t hefore is not open t o t his Court t o conclude t hat purchaset ax under Sect ion 41 oft he PGST Act 1948 or 2005 Act are not payable The first quest ionwhich would arise for det erm inat ion 1S whet her 3JudgeBenchj udgem entof t he Honble Suprem eCourt rendered 111t he case of J8gat iit SugarMills supra9is bindingon t he part iesI n t he aforesaidcase t he quest ionof law was posedin para 40f t hej udgem entand 111 nam elywhet her t t e sugarm ill was liable t o pay purchaset ax on t he sugarcane by it from t he growers of t he sugarcane I n a cat egoricalanswert o he aforesaidquest ionit has been held t hat Sect ion 4 Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document levyof purchaset ax on all sales 11 of t he PGST Act 1948 Anit a 2014.02.18 16: 09 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh 39 0 1 1 r 0 0 0 Z C I c8 rJ Z t 1 CWP No019 of2005 9 and purchasesOnce t he aforesaid j udgem ent111t he cat egoricalt erm s lavs down t hat purchaset ax lS I eviable under Sect ion 4 t hen it is well nigh im possiblefor us t o say t hat such a t ax cannot be levied on t he groundt hat PGST Act 1948 1S a st at ut e of generalcharact er which deals wit h sale or purchaset ax in respectof all goodswhereast 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 j udgem entrendered by 2 JudgeBench of t he Honble Suprem eCourt in t he case of Govind Sugar Mills rendered supralThe aforesaid j udgem enthas been Bihar Finance Act 1981 and Bihar Regulat ionof Supplyand Purchase OAct 1981 by holdingt hat bot h t he Act s would operat ein t he sam e fleld The underlyingprinciplefollowed by t he Honble Suprem eCourt is t hat t he SugarcaneAct being a specialAct pert ainingt o all aspect sof cont rol of t he sugarcaneas well as levyof purchaset ax has t o be preferredover t he Finance Act which em power t he St at e t o levy all com m ercial t axes generallywhereas t he sugarcane Act em poweredt he levy of purchaset ax only on sugarcaneuch a course would not be available t o us as t he specificAct which is applicablet o t he pet it ionernam elyPGST Act 1948 hs been int erpret edby a 3 JudgeBench 111t he case of Jagat iit Sugar Mills case supra Furt herm ore we would prefert he adopt edby t he Honble Suprem eCourt for PGST Act 1948 which 1S 111quest ionbefore us The j udgem entof Govind Sugar Mills case 6supralhas out of dierent st at ut e I t is needless t O t hat t he j udgem entby t he Honble Suprem eCourt is a declared in respectof t he Oeld occupiedby it which is bindingon all Anit a 2014.02.18 16: 09 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Court s wit hin t he t errit oryof I ndia includingt he HighCourt s I n t hat regard Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No019 of2005 10 reliancem ay be placedon t he observat ionsm ade by a Const it ut ion Bench of t he Honble Suprem eCourt in t he case of Behram Khurshid Pesikack V St at eofBom bav AI R 1955 SC 123 Even ot herwise t he decision of3 Judge Bench in Jagat iit Sugar MillS case supralhas t o be followed because t hat decision is by a largerBent h t han t he one decidingt he Govind Sugar Millss case upra9The 3 JudgeBench decision is also under t he PGST Act 1948which is t o t hepet it ionerTherefore ln View t hereis no possibilit ywhat soever t o reopen t he quest ionby opining t hat t he provisionsof Sect ion 411 of t he PGST Act 1948 would not apply t hose of 1953 Act alone would apply On t he basis of t he aforesaid prem iset he writ pet it ionsare liable t o be dism issed On account of t he bindingprecedentavailable in t he form of of Jagat iit SugarMills case 6supr we are not dealingwit h any oft he cont ent ionsraised byt he pet it ionerswhich could have been ot herwise exam inedin t he lightof t he observat ionsIm ade in Govind SugarMills case 6supra As sequelt o t he above discussion all t he writ pet it ionsfail andt he sam e are dism issed A copy oft his order be I olacedon t he flle ofconnect edcases 1 C4 0 U 0 r 1 Z 1 2 C4 1 1 r26 Z Qm 1 9 MlvflCum arl Jldge 1 Judge o l2010 4ee440eve4eeoee40401009000090044600e0 4 CWP No20300of2005 Mls The Bat ala Coop SugarMiUs Lt d v St at e Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document V St at eof Anit a 2014.02.18 16: 09 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Punj aband ot hers