Common-parlance test for oil-seeds and assent-based tax validity shaped the challenge to purchase tax, sales tax, and penalty.

Ground-nuts were examined for treatment as oil-seeds under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, with the common-parlance test applied to decide whether purchase tax could validly be levied; on that approach, the levy could not stand. Sales tax on edible oils under the 1954 notification was also considered in light of the need for Presidential assent under Article 286(3), and the earlier notification was treated as lacking constitutional support until cured later. The text further states that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains available where the challenge goes to the assessing authority's jurisdiction, and that a penalty dependent on the disputed tax demands cannot survive once those demands fail.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether ground-nuts could be treated as oil-seeds so as to justify levy of purchase tax under Schedule C of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. (ii) Whether the levy of sales tax on edible oils under the 1954 notification was valid in the absence of Presidential assent under Article 286(3) of the Constitution of India. (iii) Whether the writ petitions were entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite availability of the statutory remedy. (iv) Whether the penalty imposed under section 10(6) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 could survive.

Issue (i): Whether ground-nuts could be treated as oil-seeds so as to justify levy of purchase tax under Schedule C of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: Schedule C and clause (ff) of section 2 of the Act governed purchase tax on goods specified in Schedule C. The question was whether ground-nuts fell within the ordinary meaning of oil-seeds. Applying the reasoning accepted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the decisive test was whether the article is known in common parlance as an oil-seed used principally for extraction of oil, not merely whether oil can be extracted from it. On that approach, ground-nuts were not treated as oil-seeds for the levy.

Conclusion: The purchase tax on ground-nuts was held unlawful and was struck down in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy of sales tax on edible oils under the 1954 notification was valid in the absence of Presidential assent under Article 286(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The levy was founded on Notification No. 3483-E. & T.-54/723(CH) dated 05.08.1954. The Court relied on the prior Division Bench view that the relevant taxing power and notification were invalid until Presidential assent was obtained, and that the later curative notification of 1965 showed the defect in the earlier levy. Since the impugned demand rested on the 1954 notification alone, it remained without legal support.

Conclusion: The levy of sales tax on edible oils under the 1954 notification was held invalid and unenforceable in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ petitions were entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite availability of the statutory remedy.

Analysis: The objection based on the alternative statutory remedy was rejected because the challenge went to the root of the assessing authority's jurisdiction. If the articles were not oil-seeds or if the notification itself was invalid, no lawful tax could be imposed. A case involving lack of jurisdiction and palpable illegality was held fit for interference under Article 226.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were held maintainable and entertainable under Article 226 in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iv): Whether the penalty imposed under section 10(6) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 could survive.

Analysis: The penalty was wholly dependent on the disputed tax liabilities. Once the purchase tax on ground-nuts and the sales tax on edible oils were found unlawful, the foundation for penalty disappeared.

Conclusion: The penalty order was held unsustainable in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The assessment and penalty orders were set aside because both tax levies were found unlawful and the jurisdictional challenge was accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax demand founded on an article not covered by the charging description, or on a notification lacking the requisite constitutional assent, is without jurisdiction and may be challenged directly under Article 226.

---