COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX,

JAMMU AND KASHMIR ETC. ETC ..

V.

M/S PINE CHEMICALS LTD. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

OCTOBER 24, 1994

[M.N. VENKA TACHALIAH, CJ, S. MOHAN AND B.P. JEEV AN

REDDY, JJ.]

A

B

Central Sales Tax Act-Sub-section (2A) of Section 8-J&K General

Sales Tax Act-Government Order No. 159-/nd. dated March 26, 1971-

/nterpretation of Section 8 (2A) -Claim of benefit of sub-sec. (2A) of C

Section 8-Dealers assessees already granted exemption under

Government Order No. 159-Whether benefit of sub-section (2A) is

available even where goods are exempted with reference to industrial unit

and for a specified period as granted under Government Order No. 159-

Held, No-Whether an exemption of the nature granted under Government D

Order No. 159 is an exemption from the tax 'generally' within the meaning

of Section 8 (2A) ·-Held, No.

These petitions were filed seeking the review of this Court's

judgment and Order dated January 16, 1992 in Pine Chemicals Ltd. and

Ors. Etc. Etc. v. Assessing Authority and Ors. Etc. Etc.,(1992] 2 SCC 683. E

By this judgment, this court allowed the appeals preferred by the

dealers setting aside the judgment

of the High Court, while holding that

the dealers -assessees were entitled to claim the benefit of the provision

contained

in sub-section (2A) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act

in view of the exemption granted to them under GQvernment

Order No.

159-Ind. dated March 26, 1971 passed under the Jammu and Kashmir F

General Sales Tax Act.

For attracting the exemption provided

by the Government

Order,

it had to be established that the goads, the sale or purchase of which

was claimed

to be exempt from tax, were manufactured by a large or

medium scale Industry and that the said goods were manufactured and G

sold within five years from the date the said industrial unit had gone

into production.

The question for consideration

is whether the Bench which decided

Pine Chemicals was right in holding that the benefit of the said sub­

section was available even where the goods were exempted with

H

123

124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A reference to industrial unit and for a specified period, viz., period of

five years from the date the relevant unit goes into production. In other

words, the question was whether an exemption of the nature granted

under Government

Order No. 159 was an exemption available

"only in

specifi,ed circumstances or under specified conditions" within the

meaning

of the explanation to Section 8 (2A), as contended by the State

B or was it a case where the goods were exempted from the tax "generally" within the meaning of Section 8 (2A), as contended by the

dealers.

c

D

E

F

G

H

Allowing the review petition, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The idea behind sub-section (2A) of Section 8 of the

Central Sales Tax Act, is to exempt the sale/purchase of goods from the

Central Sales Tax where the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt

generally under the State Sales Tax Law. Sub-section (2A) requires

specifically

that such exemption must be a general exemption and not

an exemption operative

in specified circumstances or under specified

conditions.

The exemption under the Government Order No. 159 dated

March

26, 1971, is not with reference to goods or a class or category of

goods but with reference to the industrial unit producing them and their

manufacture

and sale within a particular period For the purposes of the

Government

Order, the nature, class or category of goods is irrelevant;

it may be any goods.

It is concerned only with the industrial unit

producing them and the period within which they

are manufactured

and sold. In such a case it

is not an instance where the sale is of goods,

th~ sale or purchase of which is under Sales Tax Law of the appropriate

State, exempt from tax generally. Exemption provided by Government

Order No. 159 is not with reference to goods but with reference to the

industrial unit. The exemption granted under the Government

Order

does not

sat!sfy the requirements of Section 8 (2A). (129-B-F, 130-A)

. Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd v. State of Haryana, (1976) 4 SCC 27

and

International Cotton Corporation

(P) Ltd. Etc. Etc. v. Commercial Tax

Officers and Ors., (1975) 3 SCC 585, relied on.

1.2. The Bench

in the judgment under review agreed that the

existence

or otherwise of the three limitations under the explanation

referred to on claiming exemption under Section 8 (2-A) of the Central

Sales Tax Act will therefore, have to be tested with reference to the

transaction

of sale or purchase as the case may be,

"but then qualified

the words sale

or purchase, as the case may

be", by adding "of the

COMMR. OF SALES TAX v. PINE CHEMICALS LTD. 125

dealer who claims the exemption in respect of his intrastate sale or A

purchase of the same goods". It was further added: 'thus the specified

circumstances and the specified conditions referred to

in the

explanation should

with reference to the local turnover of the same

dealer who claims exemption under Section 8 (2A) of the Central Sales

Tax Act." It is not possible to agree Sub-section (2A) speaks of sale or B

purchase of goods being exempt generally under the State Sales Tax

enactment; it does not speak of exemption qua the dealer, much

less

qua the unit manufacturing such goods. In the Judgment under review,

it has been further observed that

"the facts which the dealer has to

prove to get the benefit of the Government Orders are intended only to

identify the dealers and the goods

in respect of which the exemption is C

sought and they are not

tonditions or specifications of circumstances

relating to the turnover sought to

be exempted from payment of tax

within the meaning of those provisions. The specified circumstances

and the specified conditions referred to

in the explanation should relate

to the transaction of sale of the commodity and not identification of the

D

dealer or the commodity in respect of which the exemption is

claimed."

The above reasoning is at variance with the clear and simple language

employed

in

Section 8 (2-A). The language of the sub-section does not

bear

or

adiµit the construction placed upon it in the judgment under

review. The judgment under review suffered from a manifest

error of

law, an

error apparent on the face of the record, and, therefore, liable E

to be reviewed. In the interest of law, it is necessary that the said error

is rectified. (131-E-H, 132-A-C)

CIVIL

APPELLATE JURISDICTION Review Petition (C) Nos.

1372-73of1993 etc.

(Under Article 137 of the Constitution oflndia.)

IN

Civil Appeal Nos. 2309-10of1989 etc. etc.

From the Judgment and ·order dated 23.9.88 of the Jammu and

Kashmir

in

W.P. No. 87of1981 and in C.M.P. No. 2519of1988.

M.L. Verma, G. Viswantha Iyer, Ashok H. Desai, Ashok Mathur, M.A. ·

Firoz, Kishan Mahajan, P.H. Parekh, S. Fazl and Ms. Smitha for the

F

G

Petitioner/ Appellants. H

126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A K.K. Venugopal, A.S. Nambiar, Raja Ram Aggrawal, B.V. Desai,

B

c

D

E

F

G

Shobhan Thakore,

Smt. Shanta Vasudevan, P.K. Manohar, B.V. Desai and

E.C. Agrawala for the Respondents.

The Judgment

of the Court was delivered by

B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J. These petitions are filed by the

Commissioner

of

Sales Tax, Jammu and Kashmir and others seeking the

review

of this Court's judgment and order dated January 16, 1992 reported

in [1992] 2

S.C.C. 683 (Pine Chemicals Ltd and Ors. etc. etc. v. Assessing.

Authority and Ors. etc. etc.). The matter arose under the Jammu and

Kashmir General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. By the

aforesaid judgment, this Court allowed the appeals preferred by the dealers

setting aside the judgment

of the Jammu and Kashmir High

Court:.

The judgment under review dealt with and pronounced upon four

submissions.

It held:

(I) Notwithstanding the

fa<;t that the Government Order No. 159-Ind.

dated March :26, 1971 does not invoke or refer to Section 5 of the Jammu

and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, arid notwithstanding the defect, if any,

in the form, it is and must be understood as an order granting exemption

under and with reference to Section 5

of the said Act.

(2) That the said Government

Order is effective by itself. It did not

require any other or further order to make it effective and enforceable.

(3) SRO No. 448 dated October 22, 1982 did not have the effect of

superseding the aforesaid exemption notification.

(4) The dealers-assessees are entitled to claim the benefit

of the

provision contained

in sub-section (2A) of Section 8 of the Central

Sales

Tax Act in view of the exemption granted to them under Government Order

No. 159.

Though the learned counsel for the review petitioners sought to impugn

the correctness

of all the four findings in the judgment, we did not allow

him to

do so and restricted him only to the fourth submission. This we did

for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

We shall, therefore, confine our

discussion only to the said aspect.

Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act deals with the rate of tax. Sub­

H section (2A), relevant for our purposes, reads thus:

COMMR. OF SALES TAX v. PINE CHEMICALS LTD. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 127

"8. (2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- A

section (1-A) of Section 6 or in sub-section (1) of this

section, tax payable under this Act by a dealer on his

turnover insofar as the turnover

or any part thereof relates

to the sale

of any goods, the sale or, as the case may be, the

purchase

of which is, under the sales tax law of the

appropriate State, exempt from tax generally

or subject to B

tax generally at a rate which is lower than four percent

(whether called a tax

or fee or by any other name), sha!I be

nil or, as the case may be, shall be calculated at the lower

rate.

Explanation:-For the purpose of this sub-section a sale or C

purchase of any goods shall not be deemed to be exempt

from tax generally under the sales tax law

of the appropriate

State

if under that law the sale or purchase of such goods is

exempt only in specified circumstances or under

specified

conditions or the tax is levied on the sale or purchase of

such goods at specified stages or otherwise than with D

reference to the turnover of the goods."

A reading of the sub-section yields the following features:

(a) The sub-section opens with a

non-obstante clause which gives an

over-riding effect to the rule contained therein over the provisions E

contained in sub-section

(IA) of Section 6 and in sub-section (1) of Section

8 itself;

(b) where the turnover (or any part thereof)

of a dealer relates to the

sale

of any goods, the sale or purchase of which is under the sales tax law

of the appropriate State exempt from tax generally or is taxable at a rate F

lower than four percent;

(c) the Central sales tax shall equally be exempt

or shall be charged at

such lower rate, as the case may be;

( d) the explanation which defines the expression

"generally" occurring G

in the sub-section clarifies that a sale or. purchase of any goods shall not be

deemed to be exempt from tax generally under the State sales tax law

if

under such law (i) the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt only in

specified circumstances or under specified conditions

or (ii) the tax is .

levied on the sale or purchase

of such goods at specified stages or otherwise

than with reference to the turnover

of the goods. H

128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A We may at this stage set out the relevant portion of Government Order

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

No. 159, which provides for exemption. It reads:

"Sanction is accorded to the grant of the following

incentives and · facilities to Large and Medium Scale

Industries

in the State of Jammu and Kashmir : ................. .

(2) Grant

of exemption from the State Sales Tax both on

raw materials and finished products for a period

of five

years from the date the unit goes into

production."

By a subsequent Government Order dated August 25, 1971 the clause

(2) was substituted. The substituted clause (2) reads thus:

"2. Grant of exemption from the sales tax both on raw

materials and finished products.

The State Sales Tax paid by Large and Medium Stale

Industries on the raw materials procured by them for the

initial 5 years

of the production would be refunded to such

industries. Similarly such industries will

be granted

exemption from the payment

of any State sales tax on their

finished products for a period

of five years from the date the

unit goes into

production."

For attracting the exemption provided by the government order, it has

to

be established that (i) the goods, the sale or purchase of which is claimed

to

be exempt from tax, are manufactured by a large or medium scale

· industry and (ii) that the said goods are manufactured and sold within five

years from the date the said industrial unit has gone into production.

The simple question before

us is whether the Bench which decided

Pine Chemicals is right in holding that the benefit of the said sub-section is

available even where the goods are exempted with reference to industrial

unit and for a specified period, viz., period

of five years from the date the

relevant unit goes into production.

In other words, the question is whether

an exemption

of the nature granted under Government

Order No. 159 dated

March 26, 1971 is an exemption available "only in specified circumstances

or under specified conditions" within the meaning of the explanation to

Section 8 (2-A), as contended by the State or

is it a case where the goods

are exempt from the tax

"generally" within the meaning· of Section 8 (2-A),

as contended

by the respondents-dealers? We are of the opinion that the

, __

'

COMMR. OF SALES TAX v. PINE CHEMICALS LTD. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 129

respondents-dealers' contention cannot be accepted in view of the clear and A

unambiguous language of the sub-section.

The idea behind sub-section (2-A) of Section 8 of the Central Sales

Tax Act, which we have analysed hereinbefore,

is to exempt the

sale/purchase

of goods from the Central

Sales Tax where the sale or

purchase

of such goods is exempt generally under the

State sales tax law. B

We must give due regard and attach due meaning to the expression

"generally" which occurs in the sub-section and which expression has been

defined

in the explanation. If the said expression had not been there, it could probably have been possible to argue that inasmuch as the goods sold

by a particular manufacturer-dealer are exempt from the State tax

in his

hands, they must equally be exempt under the Central Act. But sub-section

C

(2A) requires specifically that such exemption must be a general exemption

and not an exemption operative

in specified circumstances or under

specified conditions. Can

it be said that the goods sold by the dealers in this

case are exempt from tax generally under the State sales tax enactment?

The answer can only

be in the negative. Such goods are exempt from tax

only when they are manufactured in a large or medium industrial unit D

within five years of its commencement of production and sold within the ,

said period, i.e., in certain specified circumstances alone. The exemption is

not a general one but a conditional one. The exemption under the

Government Order No. 159 is not with reference to goods or a class or

category

of goods but with reference to the industrial unit producing them E

and their manufacture and sale within a particular period For the purposes

of the government order, the nature, class or category of goods is irrelevant;

it may be any goods. It

is concerned only with the industrial unit producing

them and the period within which they are manufactured and sold. Can it be

said in such

a case that it is an instance where the sale is of goods, the sale

or purchase

of which is under sales tax law of the appropriate

State, exempt F

from tax generally? Certainly not. Exemption provided by Government

Order No. 159, to repeat, is not with reference to goods but with reference

to the industrial unit. So long as it is (i) a large or medium scale industry

and (ii) it manufactures and sells goods within the five years

of its going

into production, the sale

of such goods is exempt irrespective of the nature

or classification of goods. Similar goods may be manufactured by another G

unit but if it does not satisfy the above two requirements, the goods

manufactured and sold by it would not be entitled to exemption from tax.

Indeed, the goods manufactured by that very unit would not be eligible for

exemption

if they are manufactured after the expiry of five years from the

date it goes into production and/or sells them beyond the said period. The

period

of exemption may also vary from unit to unit depending on the date H

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

of commencement of production in each unit. For the above reasons, we arc

of the opinion that the exemption granted under the aforesaid government

order does not satisfy the requirements

of

Section 8 (2-A).

We may point out that this was also the view taken by this court

in two

earlier cases.

In Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v.

State of Haryana, [1976]

4 S.C.C. 27, the question was whether the poles and cables sold by the

appellant therein to Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking were exempt from

central sales tax

by virtue of the fact that

Section 5 (2) (a) (iv) of the Punjab

Sales Tax Act exempted "sales to any undertaking supplying electrical

energy to the public under a licence or sanction granted or deemed to have

been granted under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910,

of goods for use by it

in the generation or distribution of such

energy" from the State tax. The

claim

of the appellant was negatived by Ray, C.J., speaking for himself and

Beg and Jaswant

Singh, JJ., holding that the exemption granted under

Section 5 (2) (a) (iv) of the State Act was not a general exemption but an

exemption operative only

in

specified circumstances and under specified

conditions.

It was pointed out that the specified circumstance in that case

was that the sale must be to an undertaking engaged

in supplying electrical

energy to the public under a licence and the specified condition was that the

goods purchased by the undertaking must be used for generation or

distribution

of electrical energy. If any of these circumstances are not

satisfied,

it was pointed out, the sale of such goods was not exempt from

tax.

It was emphasised that

"general exemption means that the goods

should be totally exempt from tax before similar exemption from the levy

of

Central sales tax can become available. Where the exemption from taxation

is conferred by conditions or in certain circumstances there is no exemption

from tax

generally". (emphasis added). In our respectful opinion, the ratio

of this decision clearly concluded the question arising in Pine Chemicals

age.inst the assessees inasmuch as it was not a case where goods were

"totally exempt from tax." It was a case where the exemption operated or

was attracted only

if it was established that such goods were manufactured

in a large or medium industrial unit within five years of its going into

production

and were sold within that period. As pointed out hereinbefore,

the exemption was not with reference to goods but with reference to the

unit manufacturing the goods.

In International Cotton Corporation

(P) Ltd. Etc. Etc. v. Commercial

Tax Officer, Hubli and Ors., [1975] 3 S.C.C. 585, Bench of this court

comprising four learned Judges observed that "the object of sub-section

(2A)

of

Section 8 is to exempt transaction of sale of any goods if they are

wholly exempt from tax under the sales tax law

of the appropriate

State and

COMMR. OF SALES TAXv. PINE CHEMICALS LTD. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 131

make the said sales chargeable at lower rates where under the Sales Tax Act A

of the State the sale transactions are chargeable to tax at a lower rate .... ",

though it is true, the point raised and determined in that case was ~ different

one.

In our respectful opinion, the decision in Indian Aluminium which was

a decision rendered by a Bench

of three learned Judges was binding upon

the Bench which decided the

Pine Chemicals. (This Bench too comprised

three learned Judges.)

It is, however, interesting to notice that when the B

above two decisions were brought to the notice of the Bench, it referred to

the ratio

of the said decisions but neither followed it nor made any attempt

to distinguish it but proceeded to make it a basis for their decision

notwithstanding the fact that the said ratio ran exactly counter

to the one

adopted by the Bench. The two decisions did not certainly support the

interpretation adopted

in the judgment under review.

On the contrary, they, C

and in particular the decision in Indian Aluminium, militated against the

said interpretation. It

is for this reason, coupled with the fact that the

interpretation placed in the judgment under review on

Section 8 (2-A) may

affect a large number

of cases all over the country, that we agreed to re­

examine the issue, which we would not have agreed to ordinarily.

D

We

may now refer to and examine the basis on which the judgment

under review holds that the exemption granted by Jammu and Kashmir

Government Order No. 159 is a general exemption within the meaning of

Section 8 (2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Bench agreed that "the

existence or otherwise of the three limitations under the explanation above

referred to on claiming exemption under Section 8 (2-A) of the Central E

Sales Tax Act will therefore, have. to be tested with reference to the

transaction

of sale or purchase as the case may

be" but then qualified the

words "sale or purchase, as the case may be", by adding "of the dealer who

claims the exemption

in respect of his intrastate sale or purchase of the

same

goods." It was further added: "thus the specified circumstances and

the specified conditions referred to

in the explanation should be with F

reference to the local turnover of the same dealer who claims exemption

under

Section 8 (2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act". In our respectful

opinion, however, sub-section (2-A) speaks

of sale or purchase of goods

being exempt generally under the

State Sales Tax enactment; it does not

speak

of exemption qua the dealer, much less qua the unit manufacturing G

such goods. The exemption notification issued by the Jammu and Kashmir

Government granted the exemption qua the industrial unit manufacturing

the goods and the period within which they manufactured and sold and

not

qua the goods. In the judgment under review, it has been further observed

that "the facts which the dealer has to prove to get the benefit of the

government orders are intended only to identify the dealer and the goods

in H

'

'

A

B

c

D

·E

F

G

132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

respect of which the exemption is sought and they are not conditions or

specifications of circumstances relating to the turnover sought to be

exempted from payment

of tax within the meaning ofthose·provisions. The

specified circumstances and the specified conditions referred to in. the

explanation should

relate to the transaction of sale of the commodity and

not identification

of the dealer or the commodity in respect of which the

exemption

is

claimed." With respect, we are unable to appreciate the above

reasoning which

is at variance with the clear and simple language employed

in

Section 8 (2-A). -The language of the sub-section does not bear or admit

the construction placed upon it

in the judgment under review. We are

therefore,

of the opinion that the judgment under review suffers from a

manifest error

of law, an error apparent on the face of the record, and,

therefore, liable to be reviewed.

We are also of the opinion that in the

interest

of law, it is necessary that the said error is rectified.

Sri Raja Ram Aggarwal, learned counsel for one of the respondents­

as'sessees submitted that the object behind Section 8 (2-A) was to bring

about uniformity

in the matter of incidence and rate of tax between the State sales tax enactment and Central sales tax enactment. He submitted that

where a particular sale or purchase

is exempt

from tax under the State sales

tax enactment, it should equally be exempt under the Central enactment.

While the bro3:d objective underlying Section 8 (2-A) is certainly the· one

pointed out by the learned counsel,

it is not possible or permissible to

ignore the clear and unambiguous language employed

in

Section 8 (2-A).

The sub-section does not say that wherever a particular sale· or purchase of

goods is exempt from tax under the State enactment, it would equally be

exempt from tax under the Central enactment. It imposes a further and a

very important requirement, viz., that the sale or purchase

of goods, in

respect of which exemption is claimed under the Central Act, should

b1..

exempt from tax generally under the State enactment. Not stopping with

that, the sub-section proceeds to explain and define what

do the words "exempt from tax generally under the sales tax law of the appropriate State"

mean? In this view of the matter, acceptance of the contention urged by Sri

Aggarwal would be a case of over-simplification and violative of the

express language employed

in the sub-section.

Sri K.K. Venugopal urged strongly that the error, if any, in the

judgment under review

is not an error apparent on the face of the record,

that it

is also a possible view and that, in any event, it cannot be said that

the view taken

in the judgment under review is a view which could not

have been possibly taken. Learned counsel pointed out that a large number

H of High Courts have taken the same view and hence, the error, if any, in the

COMMR. OF SALES TAX v. PINE CHEMICALS LTD. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 133

judgment under review is not an error apparent on the face of the record. A

With respect, we cannot agree. To us, the language employed in the sub­

section looks quite clear and unambiguous.

It does not admit of any other

interpretation than the one placed

by us. More important, it was already

construed by a Bench

of co-ordinate jurisdiction in Indian Aluminium

earlier. Another Bench of four learned Judges had also understood the

purport

of the said sub-section in the same manner -vide International B

Cotton Corporation. In the light of the said binding decisions, it was not

open, with great respect, to the Bench deciding

Pine Chemicals to place the

interpretation it did on the sub-section.

We may reiterate that we have not allowed the learned counsel for the

review petitioners to question the correctness

of the first three points C

decided in the judgment under review. We are told that Section 8 (B) of the

Jammu and Kashmir General

Sales Tax Act permits refund of sales tax only

in cases where the dealer has not collected the same and that the question

whether the dealers herein did or did not collect the tax

in respect of

transactions concerned herein has been left open by this court though a

finding against the dealer was recorded by the High Court.

We are also told D

that proceedings for refund are now pending where the

State has taken the

defence based on Section 8 (B)

of the

State enactment. We need express no

opinion

in that behalf.

So far as Review Petition Nos. 1374-76 of 1993 in Civil Appeal Nos.

3148-50of1989 (pertaining to Mis. K.C. Vanaspati) are concerned, we are E

told that the said case did not involve the interpretation of Section 8 (2-A)

of the Central Sales Tax Act. These review petitions, therefore, stand on a

different footing altogether.

For the above reasons, Review Petitions

(C) No. 1372-73 of 1993 in

Civil Appeals No. 2309-10of1989, Review Petition (C) No. 1381 of 1993 F

in Civil Appeal No. 3151 of 1989, Review Petition No. (C) 1377of1993 in

Civil Appeal No. 3151 of 1989 are allowed and the civil appeals preferred

by the dealers dismissed to the extent indicated above. Review Petitions (C)

No. 1374-76of1993 in Civil Appeals No. 3148-50of1989 are dismissed.

No costs.

Review Petitions (C) No.

/753-55 of 1993 in Civil Appeals No. 5073-

75of1985.

G

Civil Appeals No. 5073-75 of 1985 were disposed of by a Bench

comprising one

of us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.) and N. Venkatachala, J.

following the judgment in Pine Chemicals, at the same time pointing out H

134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A the error in the reasoning relating to the meaning of Section 8 (2-A) of the

Central Sales Tax Act adopted in Pine Chemicals. Pine Chemicals was

decided by a Bench

of three learned Judges and was thus binding upon a

Bench

of two-Judges. Inasmuch as the judgment in

Pine Chemicals is now

being set aside insofar as the interpretation

of

Section 8 (2-A) is concerned

and because the only issue involved in Civil Appeals No. 5073-75of1985

B was the one relating to the meaning and applicability of the said sub­

section, these review petitions are liable to be allowed for the very same

reasons

as are recorded in Review Petitions No. 1372-73 of 1993 and are

accordingly allowed herewith. The judgment under review

is set aside and

Civil Appeals

No. 5073-75 of 1985 preferred by the dealers-assessees are

dismiss~d. No costs.

c

A.G. Review petitions allowed.