Ordinary meaning of wheat flour included maida, and a pre-judged revisional circular invalidated fair tax adjudication.

Wheat flour was construed in its ordinary and dictionary sense, so maida was treated as included within that expression and the sales tax exemption applied. The revisional authority had also issued a circular stating that maida and suji were taxable, which showed a pre-determined view and undermined the fairness of the revisional hearing. On that basis, the court quashed the assessment order and granted relief to the assessee, holding that administrative pre-judgment can justify interference where it deprives the taxpayer of an impartial decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether maida fell within the expression "wheat flour" for the purpose of exemption from sales tax under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1941. (ii) Whether the revisional authority had disqualified itself from fairly deciding the matter by issuing a circular expressing a pre-determined view on the taxable character of maida.

Issue (i): Whether maida fell within the expression "wheat flour" for the purpose of exemption from sales tax under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1941.

Analysis: The expression "wheat flour" was construed according to its ordinary and dictionary meaning. On that construction, maida was held to be included in wheat flour, and there was no accepted definition excluding it from that expression. The exemption item was therefore applicable.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and maida was held to be exempt as falling within "wheat flour."

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional authority had disqualified itself from fairly deciding the matter by issuing a circular expressing a pre-determined view on the taxable character of maida.

Analysis: A general instruction had been issued stating that maida and suji were not included in wheat flour and were taxable. In these circumstances, the revisional authority was treated as having pre-judged the matter and as being unable to give an unbiased hearing on the revision petition.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the failure to afford an impartial revisional hearing supported interference by writ.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed and relief was granted to the petitioner on the basis that maida was covered by the exempted expression and the revisional process had lost the appearance of impartiality.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption expression is used in ordinary language, it must be interpreted according to its natural and dictionary meaning, and administrative pre-judgment by the deciding authority can justify certiorari where it undermines fair consideration.

---