Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3674-3710 of 2002
PETITIONER:
M/s Monga Rice Mill Etc.
RESPONDENT:
State of Haryana & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/04/2004
BENCH:
RUMA PAL & KAPADIA.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.
of 2004 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.12835-12893, 14836,
17419, 21900, 22013, 22235-22273 OF 2002, CIVIL
APPEAL Nos. 2455-2465 of 2004 arising out of SLP
(C) Nos.10276-10286 OF 2003, CIVIL APPEAL
Nos.6163-6180 OF 2002, 1117-1121, 1131-1139 & 4333-
4337 OF 2003 AND WP(C) Nos.254, 262 & 288 of 2003 &
WP (C) No.15 OF 2004.
========
KAPADIA, J.
Leave granted.
These civil appeals by special leave involve common
question of law as to whether the State has power and
competency to levy tax on paddy, purchased by the miller for
sale of rice to the exporter, in view of section 5(3) read with
section 15(ca) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter
referred to as "the 1956 Act").
For the sake of convenience, we may refer to the facts of
Civil Appeal Nos.3674-3710 of 2002. Appellant is the miller.
It produces paddy, processes it and sells rice to the exporter
who exports it out of India. In the assessment proceedings, the
appellant claimed that in view of Article 286 of the Constitution
and section 5(3) and 15(ca) of the 1956 Act, the State was not
competent to levy purchase tax on the paddy purchased by it for
sale of rice to the exporter. The appellant filed sales tax returns
for four assessment years 1996-1997 to 1999-2000 in
accordance with section 25 of the Haryana General Sales Tax
Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1973 Act"). On
August 16, 1999, the sales tax tribunal accepted a similar claim
of dealer M/s Veerumal Monga & Sons vide sales tax appeal
No.698 of 1998-99. Later in review by the State, the tribunal
held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption from
payment of purchase tax on paddy. In pursuance of the order
passed by the tribunal, the assessing authority issued notice to
the appellant herein to show cause why purchase tax be not
levied. The appellant appeared before the assessing authority
and produced the necessary forms to show that the rice had
been actually exported out of India by the exporter who had a
prior order from the foreign buyer. The appellant claimed that
no tax was, therefore, leviable. While the matter was pending
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
before the assessing authority, the appellant approached the
High Court through writ petition no.8532 of 2000. In the writ
petition, the appellant challenged the order of assessment. The
department filed its reply. It was averred that the purchase of
paddy by the miller-cum-exporter, by virtue of legal fiction in
section 15(a), became purchase in the course of export under
section 5(3) of 1956 Act, but the legal fiction does not extend to
the case of the appellant who purchased the paddy from the
market for sale of rice to the exporter. By the impugned
judgment and order dated 28.8.2001, the High Court held that
the purchase of paddy by the appellant for sale of rice to the
exporter is exigible to the levy of purchase tax under the 1973
Act. Hence, these civil appeals.
Before dealing with the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties, four concepts arising from
sections 5 and 15 of 1956 Act are required to be understood.
These are \026 local sale, sale in the course of exports, export sale
and single point levy of tax for declared goods. These are
inbuilt in sections 6 and 17 read with schedule-D to the 1973
Act. For sake of convenience, we quote hereinbelow sections 5
and 15 of the 1956 Act along with sections 6 and 17 read with
schedule ’D’ of 1973 Act:\027
Sections 5 and 15 of the 1956 Act:
Section 5. When is a sale or purchase of goods
said to take place in the course of import or
export.\027(1) A sale or purchase of goods shall be
deemed to take place in the course of the export of
the goods out of the territory of India only if the
sale or purchase either occasions such export or is
effected by a transfer of documents of title to the
goods after the goods have crossed the customs
frontiers of India.
(2) A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed
to take place in the course of the import of the
goods into the territory of India only if the sale or
purchase either occasions such import or is
effected by a transfer of documents of title to the
goods before the goods have crossed the customs
frontiers of India.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), the last sale or purchase of any goods
preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the
export of those goods out of the territory of India
shall also be deemed to be in the course of such
export, if such last sale or purchase took place
after, and was for the purpose of complying with,
the agreement or order for or in relation to such
export.
Section 15. Restrictions and conditions in
regard to tax on sale or purchase of declared
goods within a State.\027Every sales tax law of a
State shall, insofar as it imposes or authorizes the
imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of
declared goods, be subject to the following
restrictions and conditions, namely:\027
(a) the tax payable under that law in respect of
any sale or purchase of such goods inside
the State shall not exceed four per cent of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
the sale or purchase price thereof;
(b) where a tax has been levied under that law
in respect of the sale or purchase inside the
State of any declared goods and such goods
are sold in the course of inter-State trade or
commerce, and tax has been paid under this
Act in respect of the sale of such goods in
the course of inter-State trade or commerce,
the tax levied under such law shall be
reimbursed to the person making such sale
in the course of inter-State trade or
commerce in such manner and subject to
such conditions as may be provided in any
law in force in that State;
(c) where a tax has been levied under that law
in respect of the sale or purchase inside the
State of any paddy referred to in sub-clause
(i) of clause (i) of section 14, the tax leviable
on rice procured out of such paddy shall be
reduced by the amount of tax levied on such
paddy;
(ca) where a tax on sale or purchase of paddy
referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (i) of
section 14 is leviable under the law and the
rice procured out of such paddy is exported
out of India, then, for the purposes of sub-
section (3) of section 5, the paddy and rice
shall be treated as a single commodity;
(d) each of the pulses referred to in clause (via)
of section 14, whether whole or separated,
and whether with or without husk, shall be
treated as a single commodity for the
purposes of levy of tax under that law.
Sections 6 and 17 of the 1973 Act:
Section 6. Incidence of Taxation.\027(1) Subject
to other provisions of this Act, every dealer whose
gross turnover during the year immediately
preceding the 27th day of May 1971 and every
other dealer shall, on the expiry of thirty days after
the date on which his gross turnover first exceeds
the taxable quantum, be liable to pay tax under this
Act on the sale or purchase of goods by him in the
State at the stage hereinafter provided:\027
(a) on declared goods at the stage specified
under section 17;
(b) on goods notified under section 18 at the
stage of first sale as specified under that
section;
(c) on all other goods at the stage of \026
(i) last sale when the goods are sold to
any person other than a registered
dealer who furnishes declaration as
specified under section 27 or as
notified under section 13 or as
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
prescribed under section 13B of this
Act;
(ii) last purchase in all other cases except
when the purchase is made on
payment of tax;
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply
to a dealer who deals exclusively in goods
specified in Schedule B or who executes a sub-
contract with a contractor who is liable to pay tax
in respect of the works contract of which the sub-
contract is a part.
Provided further that in the case of a
dealer\027
(a) Who imports any goods for sale or for use in
manufacturing or processing any goods for
sale, the liability to pay tax shall commence
from the date on which he imports such
goods.
(b) Who manufactures or processes any goods
for sale, the liability to pay tax shall
commence, from the date on which his gross
turnover, during any year, first exceeds the
taxable quantum.
(c) Who exports any goods purchased within
the State, the liability to pay tax shall
commence from the date on which he
purchases such goods.
(d) Who deals in declared goods, the liability to
pay tax shall commence from the date on
which his gross turnover of such goods
exceeds the taxable quantum;
(e) who deals in foreign liquor (Indian made
foreign liquor and foreign liquor), the
liability to pay tax shall commence from the
date on which he deals in such goods.
(f) Who deals in textiles exclusively, the
liability to pay tax shall commence from the
date on which the sales of goods other than
those specified in Schedule B exceeds
rupees one lac in a year.
(g) who is a contractor doing the work of
construction, fitting, improvement or repair
of any building, road, wall, bridge,
embankment, dam or other immovable
property and has not charged tax or has not
made use of the authority of his registration
certificate under this Act or the Central
Sales Tax Act, 1956 during the period from
Ist day of April, 1987 to 31st day of March,
1989, shall not be liable to pay tax under this
Act during aforesaid period on the goods
involved in the execution of works contract.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
(h) who transfers the right to use tents, kanats,
chholdari, crockery, utensils, furniture and
all other goods for decoration and lighting
purposes, and has not charged tax or has not
made use of the authority of his registration
certificate under this Act or the Central
Sales Tax Act, 1956, during the period from
Ist day of April, 1987 to 31st day of March,
1989 and opts for the payment of lump sum
as may be prescribed, in lieu of sales tax;
shall not be liable to pay tax under this Act
during the aforesaid period and his liability
to pay tax under this Act on the transfer of
right to use any goods for cash, deferred
payment or other valuable consideration
shall commence from Ist day of April, 1989
and shall remain in force upto 31st March,
1995.
(3) Every dealer who has become liable to pay
tax under this Act shall continue to be so liable
until the expiry of three consecutive years during
each of which his gross turnover has failed to
exceed the taxable quantum and such further
period after the date of such expiry, as may be
prescribed, and on the expiry of this latter period
his liability to pay tax shall cease.
(4) Every dealer, whose liability to pay tax has
ceased under the provisions of sub-section (3) shall
again be liable to pay tax under this Act in
accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1).
(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in this Act or any other law or judgment
or order of any court or authority in respect of
cases relating to assessments for the period from
the 7th September, 1955 up to the commencement
of this Act, every dealer who was assessed under
the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 shall be
deemed to have been assessed under this Act as if
this Act was in force during the said period.
Section 17. Tax on declared goods.\027Tax on
declared goods shall be leviable and payable at the
stage of sale or purchase, as the case may be and
under the circumstances specified against such
goods in Schedule D;
Provided that where the goods have not been
subjected to tax at any of the stages of sale or
purchase specified in Schedule D, the tax shall be
levied on and paid by a dealer liable to pay tax
under this Act at the stage of last purchase of such
goods by him;
Provided further that the tax under this
section shall be levied, charged and paid after
providing deductions admissible under section 27
of this Act.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
SCHEDULE ’D’:
Sl.
No.
Name of declared
goods
Circumstances
under which tax
is to be levied
Stage of levy
1.
Cotton, paddy and oil
seeds other than cotton
seeds, as are defined in
section 14 of the
Central Sales Tax Act,
1956.
(i) When
imported.
(ii) When
purchased
within the State.
First sale
within the State
by a dealer
liable to pay
tax under this
Act.
Last purchase
within the State
by a dealer
liable to pay
tax under this
Act.
In these civil appeals, we are not concerned with imports
and, therefore, in the course of our judgment we have only
emphasized the concept of sale or purchase in the course of
export. Section 5 of the 1956 Act lays down principles for
determining as to when a sale or purchase takes place in the
course of export. It defines constitutional inhibition of Article
286(1)(b), namely, that no law of a State shall impose tax on
sale or purchase which takes place in the course of import of
goods into or export of goods out of India. Section 5(1) covers
direct export sale, whereas section 5(3) applies to penultimate
sale or purchase, which is deemed to be sale or purchase in the
course of export and consequently falls under section 5(1) of
the 1956 Act. Therefore, in cases where a sale is not directly
connected with exports and where between the seller and the
ultimate buyer, intermediaries are involved, such a sale, if not
covered under section 5(3), cannot occasion any export and,
therefore, such transaction would not fall under section 5(1).
There is a difference between sale for export and sale which
occasions export. When the assessee buys paddy and converts
it into rice which is sold to the exporter, although purchase of
paddy is a transaction for export, such transaction does not
occasion export and consequently it does not fall within section
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
5(3). Under section 5(3), a penultimate local sale is deemed to
be an export sale under section 5(1) only if such local sale
occasions export.
Now coming to the question of single point tax, it is
important to bear in mind that in law every transaction has two
ends \026 sale end and purchase end. Section 14 of the 1956 Act
enumerates declared goods including paddy and rice. It does
not impose any liability. Section 15(a) of the 1956 Act, as it
stood at the relevant time, makes it mandatory for the State to
tax either the sale point or the purchase point. Accordingly,
under sections 6 and 17 read with schedule-D of the 1973 Act, a
single point tax is levied on rice and paddy separately provided
there is sale and purchase of identical goods. Section 15(c) of
the 1956 Act inter alia provides for adjustment/set-off of tax
paid on paddy against tax paid on rice procured therefrom. To
the same effect are the provisions in sections 15 proviso (iii),
15A and 27 of the 1973 Act. Hence, the legislature had all
along treated rice and paddy as two separate taxable items for
all purposes till 28.9.1996 when clause (ca) was introduced to
get over the effect of the judgment of the High Court in the case
of United Riceland Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
reported in [(1997) 104 STC 362]. In that case, it was held that
paddy and rice, both being declared goods under section 14 of
the 1956 Act, are different taxable commodities subject to tax
under sections 6 and 17 read with schedule-D of the 1973 Act
and consequently, the exporter who buys paddy, converts it to
rice and exports it, is liable to pay tax on purchase of paddy
under the said 1973 Act. This resulted in cost plus effect on
exports, which made the exports very costly as the exporter had
to pay the purchase tax. In order to make exports more
competitive, globally, clause (ca) was inserted in section 15 of
the 1956 Act, under which rice and paddy are equated by a
deeming fiction for the purposes of section 5(3) of the said
1956 Act. The effect of clause (ca) was two fold. Firstly, both
the commodities were equated so that the State cannot tax them
at multiple stages. Secondly, in view of the said equation by a
deeming fiction, the last purchase of paddy for sale of rice to be
exported could not be taxed in view of section 5(3) of the said
1956 Act. But for clause (ca) of section 15, the exporter was
liable to pay purchase tax on the last purchase. Hence, clause
(ca) has nullified the effect of the judgment in United
Riceland’s case (supra).
Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant contended that export sales involve a
series of integrated activities commencing from agreement of
sale with the foreign buyer and ending with delivery of goods to
a common carrier for transport out of India. Such a sale cannot
be disassociated from the export. Therefore, sale of rice by the
appellant to the exporter, procured from paddy was a part of
export sales and consequently exempt from tax. It was urged
that section 5(1) of the 1956 Act applies to export sales. They
are sales which occasion export. On the other hand, section
5(3) of that Act refers to penultimate sale preceding export sale,
which is deemed to be "sale in the course of exports" and not
exigible to tax. It was urged that prior to 28.9.1996, paddy and
rice were taxed separately as two different commodities under
the 1973 Act and consequently the full bench of the High Court
in the case of United Riceland Ltd. (supra) took the view that
purchase of paddy by miller-cum-exporter was exigible to
purchase tax under sections 6 and 17 read with schedule-D of
the 1973 Act. The result was that although the penultimate sale
was not liable to tax in terms of section 5(3) of the 1956, the
exporter had to pay purchase tax on purchase of paddy under
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
the 1973 Act. Consequently, rice exported from India lost its
competitive edge as its export became costlier in the
international market as compared to rice exports from
neighbouring countries. In the circumstances, clause (ca) was
inserted in section 15 on 28.9.1996 under which paddy and rice
were made taxable at one stage so that purchase of paddy could
be exempted from tax under the local law thereby enabling the
exporter to reduce the cost of export. It was contended that
today we live in the age of globalization where revenue from
exports help the national economy and, therefore, this Court
should read the above provisions in the widest possible terms
keeping in mind the global competition in the world market. It
was submitted that purchases and sales are two sides of the
same coin and where such purchases and sales have been made
prior to and not subsequent to placement of export orders by the
foreign buyer, such transactions should get benefit of
exemption under section 5(3) read with section 15(ca) of the
1956 Act. It was submitted that the High Court had erred in
restricting the deeming fiction under clause (ca) only to the
miller-cum-exporter; that it had failed to appreciate the scope
and content of clause (ca) under which paddy and rice have
been equated for the purposes of section 5(3) so that purchase
of paddy by the appellant for sale of rice to the exporter would
also be exempt from payment of purchase tax under the 1973
Act.
Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant in civil appeal Nos.1117-1121 of 2003,
in addition to the above arguments, submitted that in view of
clause (ca) of section 15, the term "paddy" and the term "rice"
are interchangeable. He submitted that in the present case, we
are concerned with two sales namely, sale from appellant to the
exporter and sale by the exporter to the foreign buyer. It was
urged that under the impugned judgment, the High Court has
restricted the benefit of tax exemption only to sale by the
exporter and not to the sale by the appellant to the exporter.
According to the learned counsel since the terms "paddy" and
"rice" were interchangeable under clause (ca), it must follow
that what the appellant sold to the exporter is paddy and
therefore the last purchaser of such paddy was the exporter and
not the appellant and consequently the appellant was not liable
for payment of purchase tax on purchase of paddy and sold as
rice to the exporter.
Lastly, it was urged that tax levied on purchase value of
paddy was adjustable against tax liability on the sale of rice
under sections 12, 15 and 27 of the 1973 Act and since there
was no tax on export of rice, the liability of tax on the appellant
was nil.
At the outset, we state that none of the judgments cited
by the learned counsel for the parties deal with the points which
arises for determination in these civil appeals. As stated above,
there are two ends in every transaction, namely, the sale end
and the purchase end. Section 5 of the 1956 Act lays down
principles for determining when a sale or purchase occasions
export. It inter alia defines the constitutional inhibition of
Article 286(1)(b), namely, that no law of a State shall impose
tax on sale or purchase which occasions export. To constitute a
purchase, exempt from State purchase tax, the purchase must
occasion export. The question which we have to decide in these
civil appeals is : whether purchase of paddy by the appellant
(miller), who procures rice from it and sells the rice to the
exporter is a purchase which occasions export or is it a purchase
for export? Section 5(1) of 1956 Act exempts export sales.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
There are three categories of sales, namely, local sale, inter-
State sale and export sale. Section 5(1), therefore, covers direct
export whereas section 5(3) covers last sale or purchase
preceding direct export which is deemed to be in the course of
export. The last sale or purchase preceding the direct export is
deemed to be in the course of export as the two are so closely
connected that breach of one may result in breach of the
composite contract. It is for this reason that section 5(3) inter
alia requires such sale or purchase transaction being entered
into after and in compliance with the export order being placed
by the foreign buyer. The underlying rationale of section 5(3)
is that such penultimate sale or purchase must occasion export
in order to constitute sale or purchase in the course of export.
Section 5(3) does not cover the penultimate transaction which
occasions sale in the local market, nor does it cover sale for
export. In the present case, appellant is a miller within the
State; it buys paddy and procures rice therefrom within the
State and sells it to the exporter within the State and as such it
is a local sale which does not fall under section 5(3). It is a sale
for export and not a sale which occasions export. There is one
more way of looking at the question in hand. Under section
15(a) of 1956 Act, as it stood at the material time, the State
could levy tax either at the sale end or purchase end of the
transaction in case of declared goods. Consequently, under
sections 6 and 17 read with schedule-D of 1973 Act, we have
single point levy of tax and not tax at multiple points. It is the
last purchase of paddy which is made taxable under 1973 Act.
The single point levy envisages tax at either ends of the same
transaction provided that the identity of the goods remains
unchanged. It is a tax on one single commodity. Section 15(a)
inter alia states that the tax payable under the State law shall
not be levied at more than one stage. The word "stage" in
section 15(a) refers to stages of successive sales and purchases
and not to stages, which raw material undergoes, resulting in
the manufacture of a different commercial commodity. The
reason is not far to see. Under the 1973 Act, rice and paddy are
two different commodities. They are taxable at different rates.
Under section 15(c) of 1956 Act as also under sections 15
[proviso (iii)], 15A and 27 of 1973 Act, the tax paid on the rice
stands reduced to the extent of tax paid on paddy. It is for this
reason that clause (ca) in section 15 of 1956 Act equates paddy
and rice for the purposes of section 5(3), otherwise it would not
be possible to harmonize the set-off provisions, stated above,
with clause (ca) of section 15 of 1956 Act. Moreover, clause
(ca) applies only in cases of export of rice procured from paddy.
In all other situations, paddy and rice remain two different
taxable items. If clause (ca) is read in the manner suggested by
the appellant, sections 15(a) and 15(c) would be rendered
nugatory. Similarly, proviso (iii) to section 15, section 15A and
section 27 of 1973 Act, which provides for set-off/adjustment
of tax paid on paddy against tax paid on rice, would be rendered
otiose. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that
clause (ca) of section 15 of 1956 Act provides for a limited
deeming fiction attached to purchased commodity, namely,
paddy purchased by the miller-cum-exporter. In the present
matter, we are concerned with levy of purchase tax under
section 17 read with schedule-D of 1973 Act. Schedule-D was
introduced by notification dated 1.8.1988 in line with the
provisions of section 5(3) of 1956 Act, which as stated above,
defines last sale or purchase preceding export sale, as sale or
purchase in the course of export. Schedule-D refers to levy of
tax on "last purchase", an expression which is borrowed from
section 5(3) of 1956 Act. Schedule-D of 1973 Act is, therefore,
in-conformity with the provisions of section 5 of 1956 Act. So
read, it is clear that the words "last purchase" in schedule-D
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
connotes purchase which occasions export and not purchase of
paddy for export. In the case of Hotel Balaji & Ors. v. State of
A.P. & Ors. reported in [1993 Supp. (4) SCC 536] this Court
has observed that it is difficult to define the words "last
purchase" except with reference to the mode of the use of the
purchased goods subsequent to that purchase and in that sense
levy can be crystallized only at the point of time when the
goods have been utilized in a particular way. Applying the test
propounded by this Court in Hotel Balaji’s case, we hold that
clause (ca) of section 15 contains a limited deeming fiction by
which tax exemption is given only to the sale of rice by the
exporter and not to the sale by the appellant \026 miller to the
exporter.
At one stage, it was sought to be contended on behalf of
the appellant in civil appeal Nos.1117-1121 of 2003 that terms
"rice" and "paddy" were interchangeable under clause (ca) from
which it follows that what the appellant sold to the exporter was
paddy and, therefore, the last purchaser of such paddy was the
exporter and not the appellant and consequently the appellant
was not liable for payment of purchase tax. We do not find
merit in this argument. Clause (ca) of section 15 inter alia
states that where a tax on purchase of paddy is leviable under
the State law and the rice procured out of such paddy is
exported, then for the purposes of section 5(3), paddy and rice
shall be treated as a single commodity. As stated above, clause
(ca) contains a limited deeming fiction, which only applies to
sale of rice by the exporter. This fiction is attached to the
purchased commodity which is paddy from which rice is
procured and not the exported commodity. Clause (ca) equates
the two commodities only in cases where rice procured from
paddy is exported and not to any other case. Accordingly, we
hold that the purchase of paddy by the appellants in these cases
is not exempt from the levy of a tax. Such purchases do not fall
within section 5 of 1956 Act. The sale by the exporter is,
however, exempt under section 5(1) and the purchase of paddy
by the miller-cum-exporter is covered under section 5(3) of
1956 Act.
Before concluding, we notice the concluding argument
advanced on behalf of the appellants in civil appeal nos.1117-
1121 of 2003. It was urged that tax levied on the purchase
value of paddy was adjustable against tax liability on sale of
rice under sections 12, 15 [proviso (iii)], 15A and 27 of 1973
Act and since there was no tax on export of rice, the liability of
tax on the appellant was nil. In this matter, as can be seen from
the impugned judgment, the High Court has granted liberty to
the appellant to file appeal against the assessment order(s).
Since the above contention needs adjudication on facts, we do
not wish to deal with this contention, at this stage, leaving it
open to the appellant to raise all such contentions before the
Assessing/Appellate Authority.
Subject to above, civil appeals and writ petitions herein
fail and are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.