P. K. BANERJEE, C. J. - (1.)IN this rule the petitioners have challenged the notice given by the authorities under the Central Sales Tax Act as well as under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act under section 10 read with section 5cc of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and also section 10a read with section 8 (3) (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act for imposition of penalty for non-user of the goods purchased by the petitioners on the basis of certain forms, namely, 17a declaration form under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and form C under the Central Sales Tax Act, and the goods so purchased were used for the purpose of job-work and not for the purpose of manufacture or the petitioners themselves. Whatever was there at the time of issue of the rule, but this point was no longer open for consideration in view of the Supreme Court judgment reported in Assessing Authority-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer, Gurgaon v. East INdia Cotton Manufacturing Company Limited [1981] 48 STC 239 (SC ). IN the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court interpreted the words "for sale" and cannot import the qualifying words "by him". IN that judgment the Supreme Court has held inter alia : ". . . . section 8 (3) (b) would therefore clearly cover a case where a registered dealer manufactures or processes goods for a third party on a job-contract and uses in the manufacture or processing of such goods, materials purchased by him against his certificate of registration and the declarations in form C, so long as the manufactured or processed goods are intended for sale by such third party. "
(2.)IN that view of the decision of the Supreme Court it appears to me that on the face of it the notice given under section 10 read with section 5cc of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and section 8 (3) (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act cannot be sustained. Mr. Mathur, the Additional Advocate-General, however, contended that this point could have been taken by the petitioners before the sales tax authorities. He fairly conceded that the case may be covered by the decision of the Supreme Court. IN view of the Supreme Court, however, in my opinion, the preliminary point of the Additional Advocate-General cannot be sustained. If a notice on the face of it is bad because of the Supreme Court judgment, it is no answer to say that the Supreme Court judgment can be cited before the Assessing Authority for getting the relief. Now that the petitioners have come before us and the Supreme Court judgment in terms covers the proceeding, no useful purpose will be served by referring back the petitioners before the assessing authority for doing the same thing, which can be done here.
In this view of the matter, the impugned notices stand quashed, and as such no final order can be passed, though hearing has already been completed. The parties will bear their own costs. .