Pathak, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a part nership firm dealing in molasses, Gur Lota, Rab Salawat and other commodities. It was assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act for the period October 10, 1962 to March 31, 1963 on the inter -State turnover of Gur Lota, For the assessment years 1963 -64 to 1964 -66 it was assessed under the same Act on the inter -State turnover for Gur Lota and also related commodities. The assess ments were challenged in appeal. The peti tioner contended that the turnover in ques tion, if treated as turnover for the purposes of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, would not have been liable to tax under that Act because by reason of a notification under Section 3 -A of the said Act, it was only the turn over in the hands of the manufacturer or importer of the commodity which attracted tax and the petitioner was neither a manu facturer nor the importer and consequently, it was submitted, it must also be considered as exempt under the Central Sales Tax Act. The contention did not find favour with the sales tax authorities. The petitioner now prays for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the petition, the President of India promulgated me Cen tral Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1969. This has since been replaced by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969, In view of the Amendment Act, permission was granted to the petitioner to amend the petition and a number of grounds have now been included challenging the consti tutional validity of the Amendment Act During the hearing of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined him self to those grounds alone. To appreciate fully the contention raised before us, it is necessary, I think, to refer briefly to the legal position as it developed from stage to stage.
(3.) CONSIDERING the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, as originally enacted, the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Yeddalam Lakshminarasimhia Setty and Sons, 1965 -16 STC 231 = (AIR 1965 SC 1510) expressed the view that if the turn over of a dealer was exempt from tax at any point of sale under the general sales tax law of the State it must also be consi dered exempt under the Central Sales Tax Act. This was a case relating to the assess ment year 1957 -58. Thereafter the Cen tral Act was amended by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1958, in an attempt to make such turnover liable to tax under the Central Act even though it was exempt at a particular point of sale under the gene ral sales tax law of the State. This Court, in M/s, Ram Narain Chandi Prasad v. Sales Tax Officer, Writ Petn. No. 1335 of 1967 decided by Oak C. J. and Pathak J., D/ -14 -5 -1968 (All) expressed the view that the Amendment Act had succeeded in doing so. But in State of Kerala v. Pothan Joseph and Sons, 1970 -25 STC 147 (SC) the Supreme Court reaffirmed the view taken in Yedda lam L. Setty and Sons, 1965 -16 STC 231 = (AIR 1965 SC 1510) (supra) that in respect of both the levy and the assessment of tax on inter -State sales reference had to be made to the general sales tax law of the State.;