Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.:- These three appeals by the State of Punjab, by special leave, relate to the validity of levy of sales tax on oil seeds and edible oils under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (Punjab Act XLVI of 1948) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act).

2. in all these appeals the assessee respondents challenged before the High Court either the orders of assessment proposed to be passed by the assessing authority or declining to grant refund of sales tax already collected during the relevant assessment years.

3. In Civil Appeal No. 1678 of 1969, the respondent is a partnership firm carrying on business in foodgrains, pulses, flour cotton and oil seeds, besides extracting oil from sarson (mustard). Toria etc. at Nabha. The firm is a registered dealer under the Act. In respect of the years 1961-62 and 1962-63, according to the Department, the assessee has not paid the full tax as required by Section 10 (4) of the Act, and hence proceedings were initiated for recovery of the same. The respondent filed Civil Writ No. 214 of 1965 in the Punjab High Court to issue appropriate directions to the assessing authority, not to assess the firm to sales tax in respect of the purchase of oil seeds and sales of edible oils made by the firm during the years 1961-62 and 1962-63. According to the assessee the notification issued by the State Government No. 3483-E & T-54/723 (CH) dated August 5, 1954, by which edible oils produced in ghanis had been made liable to payment of sales tax, is invalid as held by the Division Bench of the High Court in its decision reported in Ganga Ram Suraj Parkash v. State of Punjab (1963) 14 STC 476 (Punj). the High Court declined to grant certificate of fitness and the special leave application filed by the State before this Court was also dismissed on January 27, 1964. The decision in (1963), 14 STC 476 (Punj) having become final, it was pleaded by the firm that no assessment can be made against it in respect of sales of edible oils.

4. In its counter-affidavit, the State accepted as correct, the averment regarding the decision of the Punjab High Court in (1963) 14 STC 476 (Punj) and also the further averment that Special Leave was not granted to the State by the Court, to appeal against that judgment. However, the State pleaded that the Punjab High Court had taken a similar view in another decision relating to the firm of M/s. Sansari Mal Puran Chand of Jullundur and that against the said decision. Special Leave had been granted by this Court and the appeal of the State was pending. The State also controverted the allegation that the notification challenged by the respondent, was illegal.

5. Before the learned Single Judge, counsel for the assessee and the State agreed that the point regarding the Notification is concluded against the State by the decision of the High Court in (1963) 14 STC 476 (Punj) and that in consequence the writ petition will have to be allowed. By order dated September 6, 1967, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and prohibited and sales tax authority from taking any further proceedings. The Court also directed the said authority to refund any tax that may have been paid on edible oils. Letters Patent Appeal No. 205 of 1968, filed by the State was dismissed in limine by the Division Bench on July 18, 1968.

6. In Civil Appeal No. 1679 of 1969, the respondent is again a registered dealer at Jullundur dealing in sales of edible oils produced from Sarson, Toria. Tilli and molasses. The firm was assessed to sales tax for the years 1958-59 to 1960-61 on July 15, 1961. The firm disputed its liability to pay sales tax on edible oils, and challenging the notification, referred to above, filed Civil Writ No. 2863 of 1965 to give directions to the assessing authority to refund the amount collected from it. The same averments regarding the validity of the notification based upon the decision of the High Court were made in the writ petition. The State took the same stand, as in C