Goswami, J. - (1.) Five quarters of assessment of sales tax are involved in these five appeals, by special leave, the period commencing from January 1, 1959 to March 31, 1960. This judgment will govern all these appeals involving a common question.
(2.) The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, cuttack included in the turnover of the respondent the sale price of jeera, dhania (coriander), panmohuri, methi, postak and pipali and levied 5 per cent sales tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (briefly the State Act). On appeal the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Puri, allowed the claim of the respondent and held that the above items are oil-seeds within the meaning of section 14 (vi) of the Central Sales Tax Act and gave the respondent the benefit of a lower tax of 2 per cent on the sale turnover of those goods instead of 5 per cent under the State Act. On appeal by the State of Orissa to the Sales Tax Tribunal claiming 5 per cent on the sale turnover thereof under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner were affirmed. On application by the State for each of the five quarters, the Tribunal referred the following two common questions under Section 24 of the State Act: "(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal is right in holding that jeera, dhania, panmohuri, methi, postak and pipali are oil-seeds within the meaning of Section 14 of the Central Act and the tax payable under the State Law in respect of the sale of purchase of these goods inside the State, cannot exceed 2 per cent of the sale or purchase price thereof. (2) Whether the communication No. 4 (8) ST/57 dated 31st January, 1958, issued by the Government of India which is only an official communication having no statutory sanction behind it can have any legal effect to hold the goods in question as oil-seeds as understood in common parlance and whether such an official communication is binding on the State Government." We are not concerned with pipali' in these appeals.
(3.) When these appeals came before us for hearing the respondent was not represented. We therefore, requested Mr. Gobind Das to act as amicus curiae in these appeals.;