Ashok Bhan, J.:— This order shall dispose of Sales Tax Case No. 40 of 1993, filed under section 22(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Punjab Act”) read with section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Central Act”), for issuance of a mandamus directing the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, to refer the questions of law claimed and C.W.P No. 7449 of 1993 filed by the same petitioner claiming substantially the same relief as has been claimed in S.T.C No. 40 of 1993. As the point of law and facts are same in both these petitions, they are being disposed of together.
2. Facts, as stated below, are taken from S.T.C No. 40 of 1993:
Assessee-petitioner is a registered dealer under the Punjab and Central Acts. For the assessment year 1982-83, assessment was framed under the Central Sales Tax Act on October 17, 1988 and an additional demand of Rs. 15,87,253 was created by treating the rice bran oil as inedible and taxing it at the rate of 4 per cent instead of 1 per cent paid along with the return. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) who, vide his order dated June 27, 1989, upheld the order of the Assessing Authority. It was held that the rice bran oil was inedible and had rightly been taxed at the rate of 4 per cent. Further appeal carried before the Sales Tax Tribunal was, at one stage, dismissed for non-prosecution but, later on, on an application filed by the petitioner, the same was restored and, ultimately, dismissed on merits by the Tribunal on March 27, 1991.
3. Petitioner filed a petition under section 22(1) of the Punjab Act for referring the two questions of law claimed by it to this Court for its opinion.
4. Reference petition was declined by the Tribunal holding that no referable question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal as the matter was covered against the petitioner by a judgment of this Court in Chhatar Extractions Private Limited v. Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab. Chandigarh, [1986] 61 STC 374.
5. Petitioner, coming to know of the fact that the judgment in Chhatar Extractions' case, [1986] 61 STC 374 (P&H) has been set aside in Chhatar Extractions Private Limited v. Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, [1990] 79 STC 200 (P&H) filed a rectification application, which was also dismissed.
6. Sales Tax Case No. 40 of 1993 arises from the above facts.
7. Petitioner did not file any petition for issuing a mandamus directing the Tribunal to refer the question of law arising out of dismissal of the rectification application but instead filed C.W.P No. 7749 of 1993, claiming the same relief. In addition, petitioner has prayed that the order passed on the rectification application filed by him be also set aside.
8. The judgment in Chhatar Extractions' case, [1986] 61 STC 374 (P&H) was set aside in Letters Patent Appeal [Chhatar Extractions Private Limited v. Excise and Taxation Commissioner, [1990] 79 STC 200 (P&H)] and the case was remanded back by the Letters Patent Appeal Bench to the Assessing Authority to redecide the same without taking into consideration the observations made by the learned single Judge in Chhatar Extractions' case, [1986] 61 STC 374 (P&H). Tribunal declined to refer the questions of law to this Court as the point stood concluded by a judgment of this Court. The judgment by which the point stood concluded, has been set aside. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the following question of law does arise from the order of the Tribunal:
“Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, rice bran oil sold by the assessee was edible oil fit for human consumption and liable to be taxed at the rate of 1 per cent under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956?”
9. Accordingly, we direct the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, to refer the above question of law to this Court along with the statement of the case, for its opinion.
10. As we have sent for the referable question of law, which arises from, the order of the Tribunal for the opinion of this Court; the writ petition is rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such.
11. Writ petition dismissed.