Purchase tax on sugarcane upheld where Supreme Court precedent controlled and section 4-B challenge failed.

Purchase tax on sugarcane purchased directly from growers was upheld because the Supreme Court in Jagatjit Sugar Mills had already settled that such purchases are taxable under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The challenge based on entry 39 of Schedule B and section 4-B could not prevail against that binding interpretation, so the levy on sugarcane stood sustained. Questions concerning gunny bags and penalty were not finally decided on merits and were left open for consideration before the appropriate authorities.

---

---

Issues: Whether sugarcane purchased directly from growers was liable to purchase tax under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 notwithstanding entry 39 of Schedule B and section 4-B; and whether the ancillary questions relating to packing material and penalty required adjudication.

Analysis: The Court treated the question of purchase tax on sugarcane as concluded by the Supreme Court's decision in Jagatjit Sugar Mills, which held that the purchaser of sugarcane is liable to purchase tax under section 4(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and that section 4-B was not the governing provision for the petitioners. In view of that binding determination, the challenge to levy of purchase tax on sugarcane could not succeed. The remaining questions regarding gunny bags and penalty were not finally examined on merits and were left open to be agitated before the appropriate authorities.

Conclusion: The challenge to purchase tax on sugarcane was rejected and the levy was upheld against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The substantive controversy on the taxability of sugarcane stood concluded against the petitioners, while the connected procedural and ancillary matters were either left to the statutory authorities or dealt with by consequential directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Supreme Court has conclusively settled the taxability of a commodity under the charging provision of the Act, a contrary challenge based on section 4-B cannot be sustained.

---