The main legal point established in the judgment is that court decisions, especially those of the Apex Court, operate retrospectively and can influence the liability of tax and interest under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.

( 1 ) THESE two revisions under Section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 9th July, 1997 relating to the assessment year. 1992-93.

( 2 ) REVISION No. (77) of 1997 filed by the applicant and revision No. 1249 of 1997 filed by the commissioner of Trade Tax.

( 3 ) APPLICANT is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Ata, Maida and Suji applicant claimed that it had used tax paid wheat in the manufacturing of Ata, Maida and Suji. Applicant admitted and paid the ax on the turnover of Ata, Maida and Suji for the period 01-04-1992 to 25. 10. 1992. Thereafter, applicant stopped paying tax on Ata. Maida and Suji manufactured out of tax paid wheat in view of the decision of this Court in the case Cheetarmal ram Dayal, Agra v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1992 UPTC 1338 decided on 15th september, 1992 in which following the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of New swastic Flour Mills v. State of Karnataka, it has been held that Ata, Maida and Suji and wheat produce by crushing are not liable to tax again since wheat has already been subjected tax. It appears that at the instance of the Roller Flour, Mills Association, a circular has been issued on 21st April, 1993 on the basis of the decision in the case of Cheetarmal Ram Dayal (supra ). Arising with the, similar controversy, the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills association and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 1993 UPTC 1297 decided on 1st september, 1993 that Flour. Maida and Suji derived from wheat are not wheat within the meaning of Section 14 (1) (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act and are different and distinct from wheat. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court. the operation of the decision of this court in the case of Cheetarmal Ram Dayal (Supra) has been stayed by the Apex Court on 13. 08. 1993 and therefore, the Additional Commissioner (legal) trade Tax vide circular dated 25th November, 1993 Has declared the earlier circular dated 21. 04. l993 and 08. 07. 1993 as ineffective. The decision of this Court in the case of Cheetarmul Ram Dayal (supra) has been subsequently overruled by the Apex Court Assessing authority levied the tax on the sale of Ata. Maida and Suji in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Roller Flour mills Association and also demanded the interest under Section 8 (1) of the Act treating the tax assessed as an admitted tax. First appeal filed by the appellant was rejected. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed in part. Tribunal upheld the levy of tax. but held that the interest under Section 8 (1)of the Act should be charged from 0l. 12. 1993 and not from the earlier date. Tribunal was of the view that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association was dated 01. 09. 1993 which was published in the various generals in the month of November or December, 1993.

( 4 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that by circular dated 25th November, 1993, earlier circulars dated 24. 04. 1993 and 08. 07. 1993 can be withdrawn only prospectively and not retrospectively. He further submitted that the circulars are binding upon the revenue and once by the circular, it has been held that no tax was payable on Ata, Maida and Suji manufactured out of tax paid wheat, the tax cannot be levied. In support of his contention, he relied upon the various decisions of the Apex Court. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of commissioner of Customs, Calcutta and Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2004 (3) SCC, 488, Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Indra Industries reported in 122 STC, 100 (SC), State Bank of Travarcore v. Commissioner of Income Tax Kerala reported in 158 ITR, 102, UCO Bank Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income