Krishna Iyer, J. - (1.) This phalanx of appeals, over 200 strong, has stagnated for eight years and slowed down other disposals, which is unfortunate.
(2.) We believe that the price of healthy justice from the highest bench is eschewal of all but those cases which possess the twin attributes of, (i) substantial question of law of general importance, (ii) which need to be decided by the Supreme Court itself, whether the jurisdiction be under Article 133, 134 or 136. Such being the jurisdictional dynamics of the Supreme Court, save in exceptional cases of appalling injustice, we hope the Bar will share this concern and avoid a breakdown for, truly, the question today is:To be or not to be.
(3.) All these appeals spring from a common demand for tax by the State of Uttar Pradesh from a number of sugar mills on the purchase of sugarcane at a rate regulated by weight, not value, a pragmatic novelty in the sales tax pattern which has provoked an argument about its validity. Legal ingenuity, which rich mills, making common cause, could summon, spun out several constitutional and other challenges to the levy in the High Court, all of which became casualty when the Division Bench delivered judgment. Even so, the memoranda of appeals have set forth an imposing array of grounds of varying merit, all save three of which, by the wise husbandry of counsel, have been mercifully abandoned. The three survivors deserve no better fate but it behoves the court to state the triple challenges presented from various angles and ratiocinate at some length to reach the litigative terminus. One or two more minor matters, which figured in the debate at the bar, may, however, be noticed in the course of the stride.;