Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J. : (On behalf of himself, Subba Rao CJI. and Shah J.): In all these three appeals on certificate, the common judgment of the High Court of Punjab, dismissing the three writ petitions filed by the appellant, is under attack, by Mr. S. T. Desai, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The appellant, who is the same in all these appeals, is the Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd., running a cotton ginning factory, and engaged in the business of manufacturing yarn from cotton. It is a dealer, registered under the Punjab General Sales-tax Act 1948 (Punjab Act. No. XL VI of 1948), hereinafter called the Act. The appellant filed returns for the assessment years 1360-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. It had paid a certain amount of tax which, according to it, was alone due from it. But, according to the appellant, it was not liable to pay Central Sales-tax on the purchase of cotton during the relevant accounting years. The appellant had taken various grounds of attack, before the assessing authority, but the most important contention raised, appears to have been that the material provisions in the Act, particularly the second proviso to S. 5 (1) and Cl. (vi)of S. 5 (2) (a) of the Act. enabling the State to collect purchase tax, in respect of cotton, are opposed to the material provisions of the Central Sales-tax Act l956 (Act LXXIV of 1956) (hereinafter called the Central Act). The appellant pleaded that it was not liable to pay, in consequence, any purchase tax, for the assessment years in question, in respect of cotton.

3. The Excise and Taxation Officer ,Ferozepore, did not accept the plea of the petitioner-appellant regarding its non-liability to pay the purchase tax on cotton. He, accordingly, passed orders of assessment including the turnover representing the purchases of cotton made by the appellant. The assessment orders for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62, are dated November 15, 1962, and for the assessment year 1962-63, is dated July.30,1963.

4. The appellant, thereupon, filed Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1913 and 1914 of 1962 and 1591 of 1963, challenging the assessment orders for the years l961-62 and l960-61 and 1962-63, respectively. The High Court, by its common order, rejected the writ petitions filed by the appellant and confirmed the orders of assessment, passed by the assessing authority.

5. The common question, that arises for consideration on in these three appeals, is as to whether the second proviso to S. 5 (l) Cl (vi) of S. 5 (2) (a) of the Act, are opposed to any of the relevant provisions of the Central Act. A further question arises in Civil Appeals Nos. 2387 and 2388 of l966, regarding the validity of a Notification, issued by the State Government, under S. 5 of the Act, on September 26. 1961. We shall consider this further question, after expressing our opinion, on the more important question which is common to 211 the appeals.

6. In order to appreciate the contentions that have been taken before us, by Mr. S. T. Desai, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Bishan Narain, learned counsel for the State, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions in both the Acts. It is only necessary to refer to the provisions of the Act, as they stood on April 1, 1960. The Act of 1948, has been amended from time to time, and it may not be necessary to refer to those amendments, excepting on one aspect, when we deal with the validity of the Notification, referred to earlier.

7. Coming to the Act, according to its preamble it is an Act to provide for the levy of a general tax on the sale or purchase of goods in Punjab. The expressions dealer goods , prescribed , purchase . sale turnover and year are defined in Cs. (d) (e), (f), (ff), (h), (i) and (j) of S. 2. Particularly, S. 2 (ff), defining purchase , is as follows:

"2 (ff). In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-

purchase with all its grammatical or cognate expressions, means the acquisition of goods specified in Schedu