TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (12) TMI 362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n [1999] 112 STC 154 (State of Punjab v. Punjab Fibres Limited). of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 2.. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: The first respondent is a spinning mill, which claimed benefit of notification issued by the Punjab Government on November 23, 1979. As the decision in this case depends on the notification it is reproduced herein for the sake of convenience: "No. S.O. 82/PA. 46/48/S.5/Amd./79 dated the 23rd November, 1979. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (Punjab Act No. 46 of 1948) and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to make the following further amendment in the Punjab Government, E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being held that the respondents had not fulfilled the conditions of the notifica- tion and were thus not entitled to the benefit thereof. 5.. Under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, there is a provision of appeal against the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The respondents filed an appeal. They also filed a writ petition in the High Court. Under these circumstances, the learned single Judge of the High Court should never have entertained the writ petition. Surprisingly, the learned single Judge of the High Court entertains the writ petition overruling the objection that the writ petition was not maintainable. The learned single Judge of the High Court held, on facts, that the mill had not been established prior to December 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onditions of the notification. It is also settled law that the notification has to be interpreted in terms of its wording. Where the language is very clear and unambiguous, benefit cannot be granted merely on the ground of sympathy. 8.. As can be seen from the return filed by the respondents, which is set out in the assessment order, there was admittedly inter- State sales in a fairly large amount. This has been noticed by the division Bench. The learned single Judge of the High Court erred in considering these to be mere branch transfers when the respondents themselves showed them as inter-State sales in their returns. Thus the reasoning of the learned single Judge of the High Court that these are mere transfers out of State is erroneous....