( 1 ) THE reference to the Full Bench is made by Mr. Justice M. N. Rao and mr. Justice T. N. C. Rangarajan as they were at that time expressing a doubt as to the correctness of the judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M/s. Jayanti oil Mills Private Limited. The facts in brief are as follows: the assessee is a dealer in groundnut oil. It has a Solvent Extract Plant at Guntakal where it extracts groundnut oil from groundnut oil cake which has already suffered tax. On the footing that such oil falls within the Entry 24 (b) in the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (for short the Act ) the assessee has paid tax only at the rate of 2 paise in the rupee and assessments have been completed on that basis for the assessment year 1993-94. However, the impugned notices have been issued for bringing the said sales of groundnut oil within the scope of Entry 24 (a) on the ground that the oil has been extracted not from the groundnut but only from groundnut oil cake and it will not, therefore, fall within the Entry 24 (b ). For this proposition the basis is the decision of this Court in M/s. Jayanti Oil Mills case.

( 2 ) IT was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before the Bench that the judgment in M/s. Jayanti Oil Mills s case is not correct as it has overlooked the facts that the real source of the oil is only groundnut even though it has been transformed into groundnut oil cake after partial extraction and further oil is extracted from the groundnut oil cake by application of solvent Extraction Process due to technological advancement which was not available at the time when the Entry was enacted in the Statute. The learned special Government Pleader for taxes submitted before the Bench that since the matter is at the stage of issue of notice and that he was not aware that any assessment has been made so far, the judgment in M/s. Jayanti Oil Mills case does not require reconsideration.

( 3 ) THE learned Judges on a consideration of the respective arguments were of the view that the judgment in M/s. Jayanti Oil Mills case requires reconsideration. According to the learned Judges, the real issue is whether the groundnut oil has been extracted from a substance which has met with tax and this issue has to be considered with reference to the latest technology, particularly in the context of discriminatory rates of tax in respect of the same commodity depending upon the source from which it was manufactured. Hence the Reference.

( 4 ) AT this stage, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of this Court in m/s. Jayanti Oil Mills case (1 supra ). The facts in brief in that case are that the assessee was a dealer in groundnut oil. The oil was extracted from groundnut oil cake . For the assessment year 1977-78 the assessing authority taxed the turnover in question under 24 (a ). On appeal the Deputy commissioner did not agree with the contention of the assessee that because the groundnut oil cake has suffered tax the rate applicable should be under 24 (b ). However, on further appeal the Tribunal took the view that as groundnut cake out of which the oil was extracted has suffered tax, the relevant entry would be 24 (b ). The Revenue was before the Court in a Tax Revision case. Disagreeing with the view expressed by the Tribunal, the learned Judges observed that "had the Legislature wanted to grant the benefit of reduced rate of tax in cases where the tax suffered raw material has been used for extracting groundnut oil, it would have stated so specifically. The intention of the Legislature as indicated above appears to be to tax at the reduced rate only when the raw material for extracting groundnut oil is groundnut only but not otherwise. If that be the intention then on the ground that the raw material used for extracting groundnut oil has suffered tax, the reduced rate of tax under 24 (b) cannot be made applicable. " The learned Judges in support of their view relied on the Ju