Ce t v. St at eofPunj aband ot hers

of sugar cane Accordingt o t he learned counsel it would overide t he of PGST Act 1948 or even t he 2005 Act I t has been subm iued t hatbot h t he PGST Act 1948 and 2005 Act are generalAct s which provides for collect ion of com m ercial t axes sale and purchaseof all goods whereas 1953 Act d6alsonly wit h t he purchaseof sugar cane Placing relianceon various pras of t he j udgem entrendered in t he case of Govind JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document case supra it has been subm it t ed t hat bot h t he Act s have Sugar Millss Anit a 2014.01.15 14: 27 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh 1 i e 1 1 1 403 4 1 1r 0 1 I 0 Z c8 1a7 Z 0 L CWP No9019 of2005 6 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 levy of purchaset ax as it is a specialAct Theyhave also referred t o t he st at em ent of obj ect sand reasons which deals specifally wit h t he purchaseof sugar t o prot ect t he int erest of t he cane growers Refeningt o t he reasoning adopt edby a Division Bench of t he Pat na High Coun in New I ndia Sugar Mills Lt d and anot her v St at e of Bihar and ot hers 1998 61091STC 394 has been reversed in Govind Sugar Millss case 0supra9leam ed Counsel have point edout t hat no double t axat ion could be j ust ifiedon t he sam e cornm odit yor person by levyingt 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 supralhas t akent he view t hat t wo t axat ion on t he sam e com m odit yor person could be im posedby different enact m ent s which has been reversed Accordingt o t he leam ed counsel it cannot be j ust ifiedbykeepingin view t he different obj ect sofbot h t he st at ut es I t has been Slrt her subm it t ed t hat j udgem entof Honble t he Court in Jagat iit Sugar Mills case 6supra9alt houghhas been renderedby a 3ludge Bench and t he j udgem entin Govind SugarMillscase 6supralhas been rendered by a 2JudgeBench yet t he j udgem entwhich t o laydown t he law m ore elaborat elyand accurat elyand t herefore it has t o be followed Convassingfor t he view t aken by t he Honble Suprem e Court in Govind Sugar Mills Mr Set hi has subm it t ed t hat earlierj udgem entrendered in Jagat iitSugarMillscase 6supralhas failed t o t ake int o account t h4provisionsof t he specialenact m ent 1953 Act I n supportbfhis subm ission learned counsel has placedreliance JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document of t his Court rendered in t he cases of Anit a 2014.01.15 14: 27 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh t wo Full Bench 404 1 n 1 e3 CWP No 9019 of2005 r 7 I ndo Swiss Tim e Lt d v Um rao and ot hers 1981 PLR 335 and Mls Kulbhushan Kum ar and Co v St at e ofPuniab and anot her 1983 PLR 768 Per cont ra Mr PlCJain and Mr Am ol Rat t an leam ed Addit ional Advocat e Generals Punj abhave arguedt hat t he m at t er ls no longerresnt egra as t he quest ionhad fallen for considerat ion of Honble t he Suprem eCourt in t he case ofJagat iit SugarMills pral Accordingt o t he I eam ed counsel t he sugarcane sold by t he cane growers t hem selvest o t he pet it ionerm ill t he sugar m anufact ures m ay not be excigablet o purchaset ax under Sect ion 4 B but would be so excigableunder Sect ion 4 11 read wit h Sect ion 6 The aforesaid Vlew has been considered by a 5e JudgeBench oft his Court in t he case of MoI inda Cooperat iveSugar Mills Udv Assessing Aut horit v and ot hers 1995999STC 468 Followingt he Vlew t aken by t he Honble Suprem eCourt in Jagat iit Slr Mills t he Full Bench held t hat t he purchaserofsugarcane is liable t o pay purchaset a The leam ed St at e Counsel have also arguedt hat even at t he t im e when t he j udgem ent111 Jagat iit Sugar Mills case and Morinda 1 m C 0 4 Z 0 Z 4r Zt 6 1m m Z 4lm Cooperat iveSugar Millscase 0supra9was delivered t he sugar m ills have been payingpurchaset ax t he purchaseof sugar cane frorn t he cane growersunder t he 1953 Act Thus t he argum entis t hat m erelybecause aft er consideringt he Bihar Finance Act Bihar SugarCane Regulat ionof Supply and Purchase9Act 1981 has com e would not necessarilyI ead t o reoening 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 here could be no double t axat ion I n t hat regardreliance ha8been placedon t he j udgem entof Honble t he Anit a 2014.01.15 14: 27 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Court in t he case of Arvinder Singh v St at e of Punj abAI R 1979 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 405 d I O CWP No019 of2005 8 1 i 1 1 t 1 1C4 0 U r 0 Z r2S Z m 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 levy t ax t wice t here is no inherent invalidit yin t he 6scal advent uresave where ot her prohibit ionsexist The aforesaid view has also been followed by Honble t he Suprem eCourt in t he case ofRadhakisan Rat hi v Addl Collect or Drug and ot hers AI R 1995 SC 1540 point edout JudgeBench Replyingt o t he ot her argum ent slearned St at e counsel have in Jagat iitSugar Mills case was renderedby a 3 whereas j udgem entin Govind SugarMills case 6supra9has been rendered by a 2TudgeBench I t has been subm it t ed t hat Full Bench j udgem ent s oft his Court in t he cases ofKulbhushan Kum ar and I ndo Swiss Lt d upraldo 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 of coeequalBenches of superiorCourt Accordingt o t he leam ed cel t he of t he Full Bench would applyif t he coequal Benches of t he superiorCourt have delivered t he cont lict ingj udgem ent swhereas in t he present case t he j udgem entcoveringt he issue has been delivered by a 3udge Bench and t herefore it is not open t o t his Court t o conclude t hat purchaset ax under Sect ion 4ll oft he PGST Act 1948 or 2005 Act are not payable The first quest ionwhich would arise for det enninat ion is whet her 3Judge Bench j udgem entof t he Honble Suprem eCoun rendered in t he case of Jagat iitSugar Mills lpraois bindingon t he part iesI n t he aforesaid case t he quest ionoflaw was posedin para 40ft hej udgem entand nam elywhet her t he sugar m iI I was liable t o pay purchaset ax on t he sugarcane iby it from t he growers of t he sugarcane I n a cat egoricalanswer t o I heaforesaid quest ionit has been held t hat Sect ion 4 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document t he PGST Act 11948cont em plat eslevy of purchaset ax on a11sales Anit a 2014.01.15 14: 27 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh 61 of 406 4 4r1 0 1 C 0 U I t D I Z C4 C Z Ll CWP NoOl9of2005 9 Once t he aforesaid j udgem entin t he cat egoricalt erm s lays down t hat purchaset ax 1S leviable under Sect ion 4619t 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 is a st at ut e of generalcharact er which deals wit h sale or purchaset 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 by 2 JudgeBench of t he Honble Suprem eCourt in t he case of Govind Su rendered Mills supra9The aforesaid j udgem enthas been by int erpret ingBihar Finance Act 1981 and Bihar Sugarcane of Supplyand Purchase OAct 1981 by holdingt hat bot h t he Act s would operat ein t he sam e field The underlyingprinciplefollowed by t he Honble Suprem eCourt is t hat t he SugarcaneAct beinga specialAct pert ainingt o 311aspeelsof coMt rol 6f t he sugarcane 1115well as levy of purchaset ax has t o be preferredover t he Finance Act which em power t he St at e t o levy all coercial t axes generallywhereas t he sugarcane Act t he levy of purchaset ax only on sugarcane Such a course wouldnot be available t o us as t he specificAct which is applicablet o t he nam elyPGST Act 1948 has been int erpret edby a 3 JudgeBench t he case of Jagat iit Sugar Mills case 6supra9Furt hennore we would prefert he int erpret at ionadopt edby t he Honble Suprem eCourt for PGST Act 1948 which is in quest ionbefore us The j udgem entof Govind Sugar Mills case 6supralhas em ergedout of different st at ut e I t is needless t o t hat t he j udgem entby t he Honble Suprem eCoun is a law declaredin respect of t he fleld occupiedby it which is bindingon all Anit a 2014.01.15 14: 27 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Court s wit hin t het errit oryof I ndia includingt he HighCourt s I n t hat regard JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 407 4 I l CWP No019 of2005 10 reliance m ay be placedon t he observat ionsm ade by a Const it ut ion Bench of t he HonbI e Suprem eCourt in t he case of Behram Khurshid Pesikack v St at eofBom bayAI R 1955 SC 123 Even ot herwise t he decision of3 Judge Bench in Jagat iit St LearMills case supra9has t o be followed because t hat decision is by a largerBench t han t he one decidingt he Govind Sugar Millss case supra9The 3 JudgeBench j udgem entdecision is also under t he PGST Act 1948 which is applicablet o t he pet it ionerTherefore in View t here is no possibilit ywhat soever t o reopen t he quest ionby opining t hat t he provisionsof Sect ion 4 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 j udgem entof Jagat iit SugarMills case lpra9we are not dealingwit h any oft he cont ent ions raised by t he pet it ionerswhich could have been ot herwise exam ined in t he light oft he observat ionsm ade in Govind SugarMills As a sequelt o t he above discussion all t he wnt pet it ionsfail and t he sam e are dism issed A copy oft his order be Placedon t he 81eofconnect ed cases 1 C 1 1 m 02 0 0 0 Z 2 CAf c8 Z U 1 e 6MMKum ar9 Judge Judge 10 2010 Anit a 2014.01.15 14: 27 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh of2005 Mls The Bat ala Coop SugarMiUs Lt d CWP Nol0300 ofPunj aband ot hers CWP No9998of2d06PicadilySugarand Allied I ndust ries Ve St at eof Punj aband ot hers v St at e JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 408 1 C7WPNo9019 of2005 11 r m t X 8 0 1 0 I Z 5 2 r25 C Z C v St at e of of2006 Mis Wahid Sandhar SugarsLt d of2005 Mls The Aj nalacoop SugarMills Lt d CWP Nol641 Punj aband ot hers CWP No20303 of2005 MlsThe Nakodar Coop SugarMillsLt d V St at eofPunj aband ot hers CWP No20312 of2005 Mls The Budhewal CoopSugarMills Lt d V St at eofPunj aband ot hers CWP No0332 ofPunj aband ot hers CWP No20335 St at eofPunj aband ot hers CWP No20338 of2005 Mls The Faridkot coop SugarMills Lt d V St at eofPunj aband ot hers CWP No20339 of2005 Mls The Gurdaspur Lt d CWP No 20345 of2005 Mls The Faziilka Cooperat iveSugarMills Lt d V St at eofPunj aband ot hers of2005 Mls The NawanaCoopSugarMills Lt d V v St at eofPunj aband ot hers SugarMills v St at e CWP No20355 of 2005 Mls The Morinda V St at eofPunj aband ot hers CWP No989 of2006 Mls Rana SugarsLt d v St at eofPunj aband ot hers CWP No 1613 of2007 ABugars Lt d CWP N02O151Iof2005 Mls ru ot hers r4 r2 5 8 C4 1v T1 6 n V SugarMills Lt c ot hers V St at eofPunj ab V St at eofPunj ab Ve St at eofPunj ab CWP No9024 of2005 Mls I ndian SurcroseLt d V0 St at e ofPunj aband ot hers CWP No11100 of2005 BhagwanpuraSugarMills and ot hers CWP NoS526 of2005 AB SugarsLt d v St at eofPunj aband ot hers of2005 BhagwanpuraSugarMills CWP No11107 and ot hers CWP No11134 of 2005 BhagwanpuraSugarMills and ot hers CWP No20341 of2005 Mls The BhogpurCooperat iveSugarMills Lt d V St at eofPunj aband ot hers CWP No11442 of2007 Cosm os I nds Lt d CWP No11463 of2007 Coslnos I nds Lt d ot hers CWP No 41900f2003 BhagwanpuraSugarMills and ot hers CWP No 4191 of2003 BhagwanpuraSugarMills and ot hers CWP NoA192 of2003 BhagwanpuraSugarMills and ot hers CWP Nc4l 93 Of2003 BhagwanpuraSugarMills and ot hers CWP No 4194 of2003 BhagwanpuraSugarMilI s and ot hers V St at eofPunj aband ot hers v St at eofPunj aband V St at eof Punj ab V St at e ofPunj ab v St at eofPunj ab V St at eofPunj ab Ve St at eofPunj ab No195 of2003 BhagwanpuraSugarMills v St at eofPuniab ot hers CWP No4196 of2003 BhagwanpuraSugarMills Anit a and ot hers 2014.01.15 14: 27 True Scanned Copy Of The Original CWP No197 PHHC,Chandigarh of2003 BhagwanpuraSugarMills V St at eof Puniab V St at eofPunj ab JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 409 t 5914 CWP No 9019 of2005 12 1 Ve St at eofPunj ab of2003 BhagwanpuraSugarMills 16893 of2001 BhagwanpuraSugarMills and ot hers CWP NoA198 and ot hers CWP No16892 of2001 BhagwanpuraSugarMills V St at eofPunj ab and ot hers CWP No and ot hers CWP No 16894 of2001 BhagwanpuraSugarMills and ot hers CWP No6895of2001 and ot hers CWP No and ot hers 16896 of2001 BhagwanpuraSugarMills Va St at eofPunj ab BhagwanpuraSugarMills V St at eofPunj ab V St at eofPunj ab V St at eofPunj ab of2001 BhagwanpuraSugarMills Vp St at eofPunj ab and ot hers CWP N016897 of200 I BhagwanpuraSugarMiI I s CWP No 16898 of 2001 BhagwanpuraSugarMills and ot hers CWP No 16899 of2001 BhagwanpuraSugarMills and ot hers CWP No16900 of2001 BhagwanpuraSugarMills and ot hers CWPN012917 and ot hers SugarMills CWP No 12918 of2001 and ot hers CWP No12919 of2001 BhagwanpuraSugarMills and ot hers CWP No 11683 of 2004 BhagwanpuraSugarMills and ot hers CWP No 9612 of2008 Mls ABugars Lt d ot hers CWP No641 ot hers CWP N08684 of2008 Mls I ndian Sucrose Lt d ot hers of2008 Mls I ndian SurcroseLt d Ve St at eofPunj aband V St at e ofPunj aband Ve St at eofPunj aband V St at eofPunj ab V St at eofPunj ab V St at eofPunj ab V St at eofPunj ab V St at eofPunj ab V St at eofPunj ab V St at eofPunj ab a r 0 t I 9 r Z r C c8 C Z t ln CWP No17878 of2008 Mls A3Sugars Lt d v St at eofPunj aband ot hers of2008 MJs I ndian SucroseLt d v St at eofPunj aband CWP No7945 ot hers CWP No 1578 of2003 Mls Nakodar cooperat iveSugarMills Lt d St at eofPunj aband ot hers CWP No15324 of2003 Mls Wahid Sandhar SugarMills Punj aband ot hers Ve St at eof Ve eP P 9S Anit a 2014.01.15 14: 27 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document