- (1.) We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Special leave granted.
(2.) The contentions urged for the petitioners before the High Court were on two aspects. The first was whether the industrial alcohol manufactured by the appellants and subsequently, used as raw-material for the processing of certain organic chemicals, involved an element of sale attracting tax when industrial alcohol was put to use in the manufacture of the end-product. The second was whether the industrial alcohol which was drawn from two sources, namely, I from appellants' own, manufacture for what appellants call 'captive-consumption' and from purchases by them from the market, was capable of distinctive identification and quantification or whether the question of such apportionment raises disputed questions of fact such as would not be resolved in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) We may refer to the second aspect first. The High Court observed : "It cannot be gainsaid that the quantification and apportionment of the industrial alcohol manufactured and purchased by the petitioner for consumption, upon which depends the levy and collection of purchase tax, is purely a matter of fact to be decided upon evidence led by the parties. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in exercise of its special and extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction. Such questions can better be adjudicated by the authorities, appointed under the Act and the Rules and and when raised before them." It is pointed out by the appellants that the bifurcation and separate identity of these two sources and the quantum involved in each are borne out by records and that there is no controversy whatsoever of any kind on that score. Appellants do not dispute the liability respecting the purchases from the market. Appellants say that they rely upon the undisputed records of Government for the distinct identities of the quantum involved in these two sources. ;