ORDER :

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Special Appeal Nos. 12 and 13 of 1995, dated 16.10.2003, whereby and whereunder, the High Court has dismissed the appeals of the Appellant and upheld the orders passed by the Revisional Authority, dated 07.01.1995. Short facts of this case are: the Appellant is running a roller flour mill. It is registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short the Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

2. The Assessing Authority for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 had quantified the tax liability of the Appellant-assessee on the first sale of wheat and wheat products and the sale of flour by orders dated 22.04.1993 and 11.01.1994, respectively. The Appellant had claimed before the Assessing Authority that it is exempted from payment of sales tax by virtue of the notification issued by the State Government in G.O. Ms. No. 377 (for short the first notification), dated 02.05.1991, which provides for exemption of levy of tax payable under the Act on the sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products by the roller flour mills within the State for a period of five years.

3. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Authority, the Assessee had carried the matter by way of appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeals and has set aside the orders of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 by the orders dated 29.06.1993 and 31.01.1994, respectively.

4. The Revisional Authority, being of the opinion that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue had initiated proceedings by invoking Section 20(1) of the Act, inter alia, directing the Appellant to show cause as to why should the orders passed by the Appellate Authority be not set aside and the orders passed by the Assessing Authority be restored. After receipt of the reply to the show cause notice so issued, the Revisional Authority has observed that though the language of the first notification is dear and unambiguous, it would defeat the object of issuance of the notification, i.e., to encourage flour milling activities in the State and that such object not be resorted to while interpreting the notification; it would create unnatural and impermissible distinction between the sale activities of the dealers who own a roller flour mill but sell wheat and wheat products not manufactured by them and dealers who do not own a roller flour mill and are engaged in sale of wheat and wheat products not manufactured by them; the first being exempted from tax and the second not being exempt under the notification and therefore, held that the exemption in the first notification is not applicable to the Appellant-assessee and that the appellate authority was not justified in allowing the appeal of the Assessee for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, by order dated 07.01.1995.

5. Consequent upon the aforesaid order, the Assessing Authority has revised the gross and net turnover of the Assessee and calculated the sales tax to be paid by the Assessee for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 by orders dated 08.02.1995 and 09.02.1995, respectively.

6. The Assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order had approached the High Court in Special Appeal Nos. 12 and 13 of 1995. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has liberally interpreted the first notification and modified the language employed therein so as to achieve the intention behind the issuance of the said notification and held that the exemption stipulated under the first notification is not applicable and available to the Assessee and thus, rejected the appeals and confirmed the orders passed by the Revisional Authority, dated 16.10.2003.

7. We have heard Lea