G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the assessment order annexure P -7 dated February 16, 2001 passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Inspection) -cum -Assessing Authority, Patiala, who has also been impleaded as a party in person (respondent No. 4), and the demand notice annexure P8 issued by the said respondent for payment of Rs. 98,47,230 as dues of tax for the assessment year 1997 -98. It has also prayed for initiation of proceedings against respondent No. 4 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(2.) A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of country liquor. It is registered as a dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, "the Act"). By an order dated October 31, 2000, respondent No. 3 framed the assessment for the year 1997 -98 and created a demand of Rs. 98,50,561 by holding that glass bottles used as packing material/ containers for country liquor constitute as an independent commodity which is liable to tax at the rate applicable to the goods specified in entry 23 of Schedule A of the Act. The petitioner challenged that order by filing C.W.P. No. 16301 of 2000 which was disposed of by this Court on December 21, 2000 in the following terms : (i) The impugned order shall be treated inoperative and ineffective qua the petitioner. (ii) The representative of the petitioner shall appear before the Assessing Authority on December 26, 2000. (iii) After giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to him/her, the Assessing Authority may pass fresh assessment order keeping in view the various judicial pronouncements to which reference had been made by counsel for the parties during the course of hearing. (iv) While passing fresh order, the Assessing Authority shall consider all the points which may be raised by the representative of the petitioner. In compliance of the direction given by the court, the petitioner appeared before respondent No. 3 and submitted written arguments claiming that the glass bottles used as containers for sale of country liquor could not be treated as an independent commodity for the purpose of assessment. After considering the plea raised by the petitioner, respondent No. 4 passed the impugned order and issued the demand notice for payment of tax specified therein.
(3.) SHRI Mohan Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned order should be declared as void because it is ex facie contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Punjab Breweries Limited v. State of Punjab, [1999] 112 STC 314 P&Hand is vitiated due to mala fides of respondent No. 4. He further argued that the decision of the Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd., [1981] 48 STC 169 does not have any bearing on the issue of levy of tax of bottles at a higher rate under the Act and respondent No. 4 has committed a serious illegality by creating demand against the petitioner by relying on the said decision.;