GLACIER COLD STORAGE AND ICE MILLS Vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY SALES TAX JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two writ petitions, but I propose to deal with them by one common judgment because the two cases involve common questions of law. I shall, however, indicate the facts of the two cases separately in order to highlight the individual points arising in each case. These petitions were in the first instance heard by a single Judge of this Court before whom the correctness of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Padam Krishan v. Assessing Authority [writ Petition No. 64 of 1968 decided on 2nd May, 1969 (Jammu and Kashmir High Court)] was challenged and he accordingly referred the cases to a Full Bench. This is how the two cases have come up before us.

(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 93 of 1972 the petitioners manufacture and sell ice under the name and style of the Jammu Cold Storage and Rama Ice Factory. The main point raised in the petition is that the petitioners were not liable to be assessed to sales tax because according to them ice was nothing but a frozen form of water and was, therefore, exempt from the notification made by the Government under the Jammu and Kashmir Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioners also took shelter behind a letter written by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, wherein he appears to have accepted the contention of the petitioners that water included ice.

(3.) WE propose to deal with the second argument while dealing with the other writ petition where this point is involved directly. We would, however, likely to dispose of the first point raised by the petitioners in this petition. It appears that purporting to act under section 4 (1) of the Act, the Government issued Notification No. S. R. O. 157 on 15th May, 1965, comprised in the First and Second Schedules declaring goods to be taxed and those which were exempted from sales tax. Item 37 of Schedule II of the aforesaid notification runs thus : "exempted goods. . . . . . 37. Water. " It was contended before us that as ice was nothing but frozen form of water, therefore, it clearly fell within the purview of the exemption of item 37 of Schedule II. The petitioners seek to reinforce their argument by producing the opinion of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The letter written by the Commissioner to the petitioners dated 29th September, 1965 (annexure A), runs thus :