The publication of a notification in the official gazette is the effective method of bringing it to the notice of the public, and individual service of the notification to every member of the public is not required.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 21-5-1993 passed by the Trade Tax tribunal, Aligarh in Second Appeal No. 484 of 1992.

( 2 ) THE dealer opposite party deals in various Petroleum product. It has disclosed its turnover for the assessment year 1990-91 (Central) worth Rs. 6,99,92,448. 70 and admitted tax to the tune of rs. 16,13,422/ -. The dispute in the present revision is confined only to the rate of tax with regard to the turnover of Rs. 2,98,93,464/- of petroleum product. The dealer admitted the tax liability at the rate of 1% on the basis of Notification No. ST-11-2051 (2) (3)/88 dated 13-9-1990. This notification was amended by Notification No. 2380 dated 30-11-1990. Under this amended notification the commodity in question was taxable @ 4%. The assessing authority levied tax @ 4% under the amended notification on the turnover for the period December 1990 to March 1991. The said order was confirmed by the first appellate authority but UK Tribunal in the aforesaid Second appeal set aside the levy of tax @ 4% on the basis that the subsequent notification was published in the official gazette, but was not made available to the public at large. Therefore the said notification shall not be effective from the date of publication in the gazette but from the date when it is made available to the public. Challenging the validity, legality and propriety of the order of the Tribunal, present revision petition has been filed.

( 3 ) HEARD learned Standing Counsel for the department and Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned counsel for the dealer opposite party.

( 4 ) THE only controversy involved in the present case is that if notification is published in the official gazette is there any additional requirement that a copy of such notification should be made available to the public. This controversy is no longer res-integra and has been set at rest by supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj reported in J. T. 2000 (2)SC 314. This judgment is by three fudges Bench and it has not approved the judgment given in the case of Collector Central Excise v. New Tobacco Company 1998 (8) SCC 250. It has been held by Apex Court as follows:

"15. From the aforesaid judgment it an be stated that it is established practice that the publication in the official gazette, that is, Gazette of Indias ordinary method of bringing a rule or subordinate legislation to the notice of the persons concerned. Individual service of a general notification on every member of the public is not required and the interested person can acquaint himself with the contents of the notification published in the gazette. It is the usual mode followed since years and there is no other mode prescribed. . . "

( 5 ) RESPECTFULLY following the aforesaid judgment I am of the considered view that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that Notification would be effective from the date it is made available to the public and not from the date of publication in the gazette. The Tribunal as well as the first appellate authority have recorded a finding that notification No. 2380 Sated 30-11-1990 was published in the gazette on 30-11-1990. Thus the order of the Tribunal holding that the notification has not come in operation with effect from 1-12- 1990, cannot be sustained.

( 6 ) BEFORE parting with this case, an argument with regard to interest, raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party may be noticed. He submitted that the dealer opposite party was disputing the rate of tax and, as such, no interest can be levied, if ultimately the contention of the dealer is, not accepted. Be that as it may, since the said point was not decided by the Tribunal, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate upon the same. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the short ground, as stated above.

( 7 ) THE revision is allowed the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to consider the question of interest raised by the learned counsel for the opposite