JUDGMENT

UNTWALIA, J.:—All these four appeals by the State of Punjab and others against the different assessee respondents are covered by the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. M/s. Shakti Cotton Co., (1972) 2 SCR 289 and have got to be disposed of in accordance with the said decision. Since the learned counsel for the appellants endeavoured to draw a distinction between facts of the aforesaid cases and those in the instant appeals, we shall briefly state the facts of one of the appeals i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2235 of 1970 and show that the distinction sought to be made is illusory.

2. Subhash Trading Company the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2235 of 1970 was carrying on business at Jagraon in the District of Ludhiana. It was a dealer registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 - hereinafter called the Act. The Company amongst others used to carry on the business of purchasing unginned cotton and after ginning the same used to sell the ginned cotton and the cotton seeds. Roughly speaking, the proportion of the two products was 1/3rd and 2/3rd, that is to say, out of 3 maunds of unginned cotton were produced one maund of ginned cotton and two maunds of cotton seeds. For the year 1961-62 the Company submitted a Return under the Act showing the figure of gross purchase turn-over at Rs. 4 lakhs and odd, which included the purchase figure of unginned cotton. The assessee claimed that it had sold the entire ginned cotton and cotton seeds produced out of the unginned cotton to registered dealers and in course of inter-State trade and commerce. It, therefore, claimed deduction of the entire amount of the price of unginned cotton from its gross turn-over under Sec. 5 (2) (a) (vi) of the Act. The assessing authority, Ludhina by its assessment order dated the 16th March, 1964 allowed deduction to the extent of 1/3rd only that is to say in respect of the price of ginned cotton. The company filed a writ petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court and challenged the order of the assessing authority as being without jurisdiction and illegal. The learned single Judge of the High Court disposed of the writ petition by his order dated January 29, 1965 passed in the following terms:

"The point involved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution stands concluded by a Bench decision of this Court in Patel Cotton Co. P. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, (1964) 15 STC 865 (Punj). The petition, is consequently allowed and the Assessing Authority is directed to modify 771 the order and give such relief as may be permissible in accordance with the law laid down by the Division Bench.

Letters Patent appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the High Court. The facts of the other appeals are identical. All the appeals were filed by certificate of the High Court.

3. The entire history of the law involved in these appeals, its implications and effect have been very elaborately considered by this Court in the case of Shakti Cotton Co., (1972) 2 SCR 289. The said Company had filed a writ application in the year 1964 in the High Court to challenge the assessment order passed on September 26, 1963. The assessee had claimed the entire amount of the purchase price of unginned cotton as deductible under Section 5 (2) (a) (vi) of the Act and had also challenged the legality of the assessment. A question, simpliciter, as to whether the price of cotton seeds was deductible from the purchase turn-over of unginned cotton was fully covered by the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. M/s. Chandu Lal Kishori Lal, (1969) 3 SCR 849. But the legality of the assessment under the Act as it stood at the time of the passing of the assessment orders was challenged with success in the case of Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Punjab, (1967) 3 SCR 577. The defect in the said law, as pointed out by this Court in the said case, was rectified by issuance of two Ordinances followed by Punjab General Sales Tax (Amend