The court emphasized the near identity of bun with bread and referred to historical, sociological, and common sense views to support its conclusion that bun would be classified as bread for taxation purposes.

K. SUKUMARAN, J. - Modern Bakeries (India) Limited made a daring debut in food industry. It gave to the consumer in neat and attractive packets its branded bread rich in nutrients and vitamins. Even the slicing had been done enabling an easy gulping or a quick enough toasting. With the development of the market for its products, it took to other items as well. Variety has its attractions whether it be in food, fabric or fashion. Bun was yet another product. It was placed on a par with the bread to all intents and purposes. It was so treated even by the Government initially. Later came a revision of its view by the Government. Bun is not bread but only a bakery product-was the new view taken by the Government. That view was expressed under an enabling power which the Government got under the amended Act of 1978 - section 59A. The change of view had serious impact on the fiscal position of the petitioner. It agitated its grievances along the hierarchy of statutory authorities. Even the Tribunal felt impelled to follow the directive of the Government under section 59A. Relief was therefore elusive for the petitioner. The final knock was at the court's door.

2. Elaborate contentions of the petitioner on the factual front, and on the legal aspects were successfully presented to us by the petitioner's counsel Smt. S. K. Devi. We have already pronounced on the constitutionality of the section in our decision in O.P. Nos. 2300, 5082, 6130 of 1985, etc. (Reported as Travancore Chemical & Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1991] 81 STC 313 (Ker)). The section has been struck down as violative of article 14 and for the reasons stated therein.

3. Deference to the detailed arguments presented to us on the alternate submission-whether bun is bread-prompts us pronounce on that question as well. When the question arises and has been well argued, court shall not ordinarily shirk a decision, the exactions involved in the process notwithstanding.

4. The court has been assisted with cogent details on technical aspects by appropriate averments contained in the original petition. An additional affidavit was filed after the commencement of the hearing of the cases. Though two of the writ petitions have been filed in 1985 and one in 1987, the Taxes Department has shown criminal negligence in the conduct of the cases. No one in that department showed a little of responsibility to the State and to the people in the discharge of his duty. The pendency of the cases for five years, was not sufficient for the money collectors to present their version to the court of law when called upon to do so ! Make-believe arrangement of filing a counter-affidavit, technically, has been attempted. In relation to the averments regarding bun, bread and bakery products, the counter-affidavit gives the views of the Government on sandalwood oil and such other things ! Repeated directives of the court to restructure the functioning of this department, at any rate in relation to the conduct of the cases before the court, have fallen on deaf ears and on indifferent minds. These difficulties notwithstanding, the court has to perform its duty.

5. Undisputed facts may be set out at the outset. For the purpose of these cases, history need be traced only from 1963 when the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, came into force. "Bread" figures in item 14 of Schedule Ill of the Act. A conjoint reading of section 9 with that Schedule brings about the result that the sales are exempt from taxation. The position continued as such up to September 15, 1980.

6. The petitioners submitted are presentation on May 11, 1981 to the Government seeking a clarification regarding the rate of tax payable on bun produced and sold by the petitioners. The Government took the view that bun was a general item liable to levy of tax at 4 per cent multi-point prior to September 16, 1980 and came under entry 9 of that Schedule after the Amendment Act of 1980 (Act 19 of 1980) which came into