- (1.) IN this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of a notification of the Government of Punjab dated June 27, 1986, made in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1-A) of section 5 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (Punjab Act No. 46 of 1948), annexure P-2, and for quashing of a direction issued by the Director, Food and Supplies and Special Secretary, Punjab Government to the District Food and Supplies Controller, Patiala, requiring him to recover back the sales tax paid to the petitioners in respect of bardana supplied to the department subsequent to July 4, 1986.
(2.) BY the notification, annexure P-2, dated June 27, 1986, it was notified that with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette, the tax under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, shall be levied at the first stage of the sale of bardana made of jute or fibres-synthetic or any other material. The first stages fixed under the notification are : " (i) in the case of a dealer who brings into the State of Punjab the said goods from any place outside the State of Punjab, be the stage when such dealer sells the said goods for the first time in the State of Punjab; (ii) in the case of a dealer who manufactures the said goods in the State of Punjab, be the stage when such dealer sells the said goods for the first time in the State of Punjab; and (iii) in the case of any other dealer who has not purchased the said goods from a dealer referred to in clause (ii), be the stage when such dealer sells the goods for the first time in the State of Punjab. " It is not in dispute that the purchases of bardana by the various petitioners in the writ petition came within the specifications of the first stage and that they paid the sales tax to their vendors in respect of the bardana purchased by them, but what was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the same bardana which was purchased by them, was used by the petitioners for bagging the rice supplied to the Government under the Levy Orders and that, therefore, they are entitled to levy sales tax on these sales of gunny bags. It is admitted that bardana was separately sold to the department by the petitioners and they have also collected sales tax from the department in respect of those sales. In view of the notification levying sales tax at the first stage of sale of bardana, the sale to the department which is a second sale within the State is not liable to be taxed, but if the petitioners had charged sales tax and collected, it is illegal and liable to be restored to the department. It is, therefore, ununderstandable how the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are not entitled to refund the amount illegally collected by them to the purchasers. No specific constitutional ground has been taken in respect of the contention that the levy of sales tax at the first stage was not valid and annexure P-2 is liable to be quashed. In paragraph 16 of the petition, however, it is stated that annexure P-2 is liable to be quashed on the ground that rule 29 gives certain exemptions with regard to levy of tax where the goods are supplied to the military, U. N. O. , children fund and like others, but no exemption of payment of tax has been mentioned in annexure P-2 on the goods supplied to the Government for better distribution of essential commodities and that, therefore, annexure P-2 is ultra vires and against the principles of natural justice. Certainly, the rice millers whose purchases from third parties are taxed at the first stage are not of the same category or class of persons as military, U. N. O. , children fund and other similar organisations mentioned therein and the levy of sales tax on the bardana at the first stage could not be questioned on this ground. No principle of natural justice is involved in this. No hostile discrimination could also be said to arise in this case.
(3.) THE other contention of the learned counsel was that since ultimately they are supplying bardana to the Government and that transaction of sale by them to the Government is not taxable, their purchases also should not be taxed. This would only lead to the ultimate result that the sales tax should be at multi-point and at every stage of the sale or not at all. This cannot be the scheme of sales tax. Some goods are taxed at multi-point and some goods are taxed at single point and in this case the Government has chosen to levy tax at single point on the sale of bardana and no exception could be taken to that. The writ petition is absolutely devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed.;