Judicial decorum mandates that deviations from previous rulings should be handled through proper references to larger benches to uphold certainty in legal principles.

1. By virtue of the reference made by the Division Bench, writ petitions were taken up for hearing. Before touching the merits of the case, at the very outset, learned Advocate General representing the respondents, contended to canvass the maintainability of the reference made by the Division Bench of this Court for hearing and deciding the petitions by a Larger Bench, in presence of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Girdhari Lal Anand Saraf v. State of J. and K. , AIR 1969 J and K 113, wherein the legality and constitutional validity of S.3 of the Levy of Tools Act , Samvat, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) has been held to be intra vires, which is also the subject - matter of challenge in the present writ petitions.

2. The matrix of the case is that the petitioners in this batch of petitions, have invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India projecting an issue with regard to the legality and constitutional validity of S.3 of the Act and SROs 348 and 349 of 1982. Before the issuance of impugned SRO 348 of 1982, toll tax was levied on the goods at the rate of 6 paise per kg. By the issuance of SRO 348 of 1982 dated 20-8-1982, additional toll tax at the rate of 00.60 paise per kg. and SRO 349 of 1982 dated 20-8-1982 sales tax at the rate of 8% per kg. respectively on dry fruits including almonds, walnuts and walnut kernals, to be exported out of the State, has been imposed. The petitioners also seek to quash SRO 436 of 1983 dated 23-8-1983 whereby the State has withdrawn exemption from payment of toll tax by various Small Scale Industrial Units (for short, SSIs) granted under SRO 484 of 1977.

3. The petitioners contended before the writ Court that the impugned SROs are discriminatory and violative of Art.14, Art.19(1)(g), Art.265, Art.286(1) and Art.301 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge formulated, five points for consideration and in view of the law laid down in AIR 1969 J and K 113 holding the levy of tax under S.3 of the Act intra vires of Art.301 and Art.304 of the Constitution, felt it necessary for reconsideration of the law laid down by the Full Bench, by a Larger Bench to determine the controversy by an authoritative pronouncement. The learned single Judge referred the writ petitions, by an order dated 6-2-1987, for consideration of a Larger Bench.

4. Pursuant to the said reference, Division Bench proceeded to hear the petitions. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Division Bench was persuaded to form a view that prima facie there is merit in the contention of the writ petitioners. The Division Bench in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, similarly, felt the necessity in the interest of justice, to refer the petitions to be heard and decided by a Larger Bench because decision in Girdhari Lal Anand's case supra had been delivered by a Full Bench consisting of three learned Judges. This is how this reference has come up before the Full Bench.

5. While the matter was taken up, as pointed out earlier, a controversy has been generated by learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the reference made by the learned single Judge as well as by the Division Bench for reconsideration of the Full Bench judgment, on the plea that the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, having its binding character, the learned single Judge and the Division Bench ought to have followed the law laid down by the Full Bench and maintained the judicial propriety and discipline. The plea of respondents has been contested by the writ petitioners.

6