COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, JAMMU AND KASHMIR ETC. ETC ..versusM/S PINE CHEMICALS LTD. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

                  COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX,                              A
                 JAMMU AND KASHMIR ETC. ETC ..
                                   V.

         M/S PINE CHEMICALS LTD. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

                          OCTOBER 24, 1994
                                                                          B
    [M.N. VENKA TACHALIAH, CJ, S. MOHAN AND B.P. JEEV AN
                        REDDY, JJ.]

     Central Sales Tax Act-Sub-section (2A) of Section 8-J&K General
Sales Tax Act-Government Order No. 159-/nd. dated March 26, 1971-
/nterpretation of Section 8 (2A) -Claim of benefit of sub-sec. (2A) of C
Section 8-Dealers assessees already granted exemption under
Government Order No. 159-Whether benefit of sub-section (2A) is
available even where goods are exempted with reference to industrial unit
and for a specified period as granted under Government Order No. 159-
Held, No-Whether an exemption of the nature granted under Government D
Order No. 159 is an exemption from the tax 'generally' within the meaning
of Section 8 (2A) ·-Held, No.

     These petitions were filed seeking the review of this Court's
judgment and Order dated January 16, 1992 in Pine Chemicals Ltd. and
Ors. Etc. Etc. v. Assessing Authority and Ors. Etc. Etc.,(1992] 2 SCC 683. E
By this judgment, this court allowed the appeals preferred by the
dealers setting aside the judgment of the High Court, while holding that
the dealers - assessees were entitled to claim the benefit of the provision
contained in sub-section (2A) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act
in view of the exemption granted to them under GQvernment Order No.
159-Ind. dated March 26, 1971 passed under the Jammu and Kashmir F
General Sales Tax Act.

     For attracting the exemption provided by the Government Order,
it had to be established that the goads, the sale or purchase of which
was claimed to be exempt from tax, were manufactured by a large or
medium scale Industry and that the said goods were manufactured and G
sold within five years from the date the said industrial unit had gone
into production.

     The question for consideration is whether the Bench which decided
Pine Chemicals was right in holding that the benefit of the said sub-
section was available even where the goods were exempted with             H
                                  123
    124                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS        [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   reference to industrial unit and for a specified period, viz., period of
    five years from the date the relevant unit goes into production. In other
    words, the question was whether an exemption of the nature granted
    under Government Order No. 159 was an exemption available "only in
    specifi,ed circumstances or under specified conditions" within the
    meaning of the explanation to Section 8 (2A), as contended by the State
B   or was it a case where the goods were exempted from the tax
    "generally" within the meaning of Section 8 (2A), as contended by the
    dealers.

          Allowing the review petition, this Court

c        HELD : 1.1. The idea behind sub-section (2A) of Section 8 of the
    Central Sales Tax Act, is to exempt the sale/purchase of goods from the
    Central Sales Tax where the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt
    generally under the State Sales Tax Law. Sub-section (2A) requires
    specifically that such exemption must be a general exemption and not
    an exemption operative in specified circumstances or under specified
D   conditions. The exemption under the Government Order No. 159 dated
    March 26, 1971, is not with reference to goods or a class or category of
    goods but with reference to the industrial unit producing them and their
    manufacture and sale within a particular period For the purposes of the
    Government Order, the nature, class or category of goods is irrelevant;
    it may be any goods. It is concerned only with the industrial unit
E   producing them and the period within which they are manufactured
    and sold. In such a case it is not an instance where the sale is of goods,
    th~ sale or purchase of which is under Sales Tax Law of the appropriate
    State, exempt from tax generally. Exemption provided by Government
    Order No. 159 is not with reference to goods but with reference to the
    industrial unit. The exemption granted under the Government Order
F   does not sat!sfy the requirements of Section 8 (2A). (129-B-F, 130-A)

        . Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd v. State of Haryana, (1976) 4 SCC 27
    and International Cotton Corporation (P) Ltd. Etc. Etc. v. Commercial Tax
    Officers and Ors., (1975) 3 SCC 585, relied on.

G        1.2. The Bench in the judgment under review agreed that the
    existence or otherwise of the three limitations under the explanation
    referred to on claiming exemption under Section 8 (2-A) of the Central
    Sales Tax Act will therefore, have to be tested with reference to the
    transaction of sale or purchase as the case may be, "but then qualified
    the words sale or purchase, as the case may be", by adding "of the
H
           COMMR. OF SALES TAX v. PINE CHEMICALS LTD.                  125

dealer who claims the exemption in respect of his intrastate sale or          A
purchase of the same goods". It was further added: 'thus the specified
circumstances and the specified conditions referred to in the
explanation should with reference to the local turnover of the same
dealer who claims exemption under Section 8 (2A) of the Central Sales
Tax Act." It is not possible to agree Sub-section (2A) speaks of sale or      B
 purchase of goods being exempt generally under the State Sales Tax
enactment; it does not speak of exemption qua the dealer, much less
qua the unit manufacturing such goods. In the Judgment under review,
it has been further observed that "the facts which the dealer has to
prove to get the benefit of the Government Orders are intended only to
identify the dealers and the goods in respect of which the exemption is       C
sought and they are not tonditions or specifications of circumstances
relating to the turnover sought to be exempted from payment of tax
within the meaning of those provisions. The specified circumstances
and the specified conditions referred to in the explanation should relate
to the transaction of sale of the commodity and not identification of the     D
dealer or the commodity in respect of which the exemption is claimed."
The above reasoning is at variance with the clear and simple language
employed in Section 8 (2-A). The language of the sub-section does not
bear or adiµit the construction placed upon it in the judgment under
review. The judgment under review suffered from a manifest error of
law, an error apparent on the face of the record, and, therefore, liable      E
to be reviewed. In the interest of law, it is necessary that the said error
is rectified. (131-E-H, 132-A-C)

   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                 Review Petition (C) Nos.
1372-73of1993 etc.
                                                                              F
    (Under Article 137 of the Constitution oflndia.)

                                    IN

    Civil Appeal Nos. 2309-10of1989 etc. etc.
                                                                              G
   From the Judgment and ·order dated 23.9.88 of the Jammu and
Kashmir in W.P. No. 87of1981 and in C.M.P. No. 2519of1988.

     M.L. Verma, G. Viswantha Iyer, Ashok H. Desai, Ashok Mathur, M.A. ·
Firoz, Kishan Mahajan, P.H. Parekh, S. Fazl and Ms. Smitha for the
Petitioner/Appellants.                                                   H
    126                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A       K.K. Venugopal, A.S. Nambiar, Raja Ram Aggrawal, B.V. Desai,
    Shobhan Thakore, Smt. Shanta Vasudevan, P.K. Manohar, B.V. Desai and
    E.C. Agrawala for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B        B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. These petitions are filed by the
    Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jammu and Kashmir and others seeking the
    review of this Court's judgment and order dated January 16, 1992 reported
    in [1992] 2 S.C.C. 683 (Pine Chemicals Ltd and Ors. etc. etc. v. Assessing.
    Authority and Ors. etc. etc.). The matter arose under the Jammu and
    Kashmir General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. By the
c   aforesaid judgment, this Court allowed the appeals preferred by the dealers
    setting aside the judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court:.

        The judgment under review dealt with and pronounced upon four
    submissions. It held:

D        (I) Notwithstanding the fa<;t that the Government Order No. 159-Ind.
    dated March :26, 1971 does not invoke or refer to Section 5 of the Jammu
    and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, arid notwithstanding the defect, if any,
    in the form, it is and must be understood as an order granting exemption
    under and with reference to Section 5 of the said Act.

E       (2) That the said Government Order is effective by itself. It did not
    require any other or further order to make it effective and enforceable.

        (3) SRO No. 448 dated October 22, 1982 did not have the effect of
    superseding the aforesaid exemption notification.

        (4) The dealers-assessees are entitled to claim the benefit of the
F
    provision contained in sub-section (2A) of Section 8 of the Central Sales
    Tax Act in view of the exemption granted to them under Government Order
    No. 159.

         Though the learned counsel for the review petitioners sought to impugn
G   the correctness of all the four findings in the judgment, we did not allow
    him to do so and restricted him only to the fourth submission. This we did
    for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. We shall, therefore, confine our
    discussion only to the said aspect.

         Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act deals with the rate of tax. Sub-
H   section (2A), relevant for our purposes, reads thus:
     COMMR. OF SALES TAX v. PINE CHEMICALS LTD. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.]         127

                "8. (2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-             A
                section (1-A) of Section 6 or in sub-section (1) of this
                section, tax payable under this Act by a dealer on his
                turnover insofar as the turnover or any part thereof relates
                to the sale of any goods, the sale or, as the case may be, the
                purchase of which is, under the sales tax law of the
                appropriate State, exempt from tax generally or subject to       B
                tax generally at a rate which is lower than four percent
                (whether called a tax or fee or by any other name), sha!I be
                nil or, as the case may be, shall be calculated at the lower
                rate.

                Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section a sale or C
                purchase of any goods shall not be deemed to be exempt
                from tax generally under the sales tax law of the appropriate
                State if under that law the sale or purchase of such goods is
                exempt only in specified circumstances or under specified
                conditions or the tax is levied on the sale or purchase of
                such goods at specified stages or otherwise than with            D
                reference to the turnover of the goods."

    A reading of the sub-section yields the following features:

     (a) The sub-section opens with a non-obstante clause which gives an
over-riding effect to the rule contained therein over the provisions E
contained in sub-section (IA) of Section 6 and in sub-section (1) of Section
8 itself;

     (b) where the turnover (or any part thereof) of a dealer relates to the
sale of any goods, the sale or purchase of which is under the sales tax law
of the appropriate State exempt from tax generally or is taxable at a rate       F
lower than four percent;

    (c) the Central sales tax shall equally be exempt or shall be charged at
such lower rate, as the case may be;

     (d) the explanation which defines the expression "generally" occurring G
in the sub-section clarifies that a sale or. purchase of any goods shall not be
deemed to be exempt from tax generally under the State sales tax law if
under such law (i) the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt only in
specified circumstances or under specified conditions or (ii) the tax is .
levied on the sale or purchase of such goods at specified stages or otherwise
than with reference to the turnover of the goods.                               H
    128                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A       We may at this stage set out the relevant portion of Government Order
    No. 159, which provides for exemption. It reads:

                    "Sanction is accorded to the grant of the following
                    incentives and · facilities to Large and Medium Scale
                    Industries in the State of Jammu and Kashmir :................. .
B
                    (2) Grant of exemption from the State Sales Tax both on
                    raw materials and finished products for a period of five
                    years from the date the unit goes into production."

         By a subsequent Government Order dated August 25, 1971 the clause
c   (2) was substituted. The substituted clause (2) reads thus:

                     "2. Grant of exemption from the sales tax both on raw
                     materials and finished products.

                     The State Sales Tax paid by Large and Medium Stale                 ,__
                                                                                        '
D                    Industries on the raw materials procured by them for the
                     initial 5 years of the production would be refunded to such
                     industries. Similarly such industries will be granted
                     exemption from the payment of any State sales tax on their
                     finished products for a period of five years from the date the
                     unit goes into production."
E
           For attracting the exemption provided by the government order, it has
      to be established that (i) the goods, the sale or purchase of which is claimed
      to be exempt from tax, are manufactured by a large or medium scale
    · industry and (ii) that the said goods are manufactured and sold within five
      years from the date the said industrial unit has gone into production.
F
         The simple question before us is whether the Bench which decided
    Pine Chemicals is right in holding that the benefit of the said sub-section is
    available even where the goods are exempted with reference to industrial
    unit and for a specified period, viz., period of five years from the date the
    relevant unit goes into production. In other words, the question is whether
G   an exemption of the nature granted under Government Order No. 159 dated
    March 26, 1971 is an exemption available "only in specified circumstances
    or under specified conditions" within the meaning of the explanation to
    Section 8 (2-A), as contended by the State or is it a case where the goods
    are exempt from the tax "generally" within the meaning· of Section 8 (2-A),
H   as contended by the respondents-dealers? We are of the opinion that the
     COMMR. OF SALES TAX v. PINE CHEMICALS LTD. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.]     129

respondents-dealers' contention cannot be accepted in view of the clear and A
unambiguous language of the sub-section.

      The idea behind sub-section (2-A) of Section 8 of the Central Sales
Tax Act, which we have analysed hereinbefore, is to exempt the
sale/purchase of goods from the Central Sales Tax where the sale or
purchase of such goods is exempt generally under the State sales tax law. B
We must give due regard and attach due meaning to the expression
"generally" which occurs in the sub-section and which expression has been
defined in the explanation. If the said expression had not been there, it
could probably have been possible to argue that inasmuch as the goods sold
by a particular manufacturer-dealer are exempt from the State tax in his
hands, they must equally be exempt under the Central Act. But sub-section C
(2A) requires specifically that such exemption must be a general exemption
and not an exemption operative in specified circumstances or under
specified conditions. Can it be said that the goods sold by the dealers in this
case are exempt from tax generally under the State sales tax enactment?
The answer can only be in the negative. Such goods are exempt from tax
only when they are manufactured in a large or medium industrial unit D
within five years of its commencement of production and sold within the ,
said period, i.e., in certain specified circumstances alone. The exemption is
not a general one but a conditional one. The exemption under the
Government Order No. 159 is not with reference to goods or a class or
category of goods but with reference to the industrial unit producing them E
and their manufacture and sale within a particular period For the purposes
of the government order, the nature, class or category of goods is irrelevant;
it may be any goods. It is concerned only with the industrial unit producing
them and the period within which they are manufactured and sold. Can it be
            a
said in such case that it is an instance where the sale is of goods, the sale
 or purchase ofwhich is under sales tax law of the appropriate State, exempt F
from tax generally? Certainly not. Exemption provided by Government
 Order No. 159, to repeat, is not with reference to goods but with reference
to the industrial unit. So long as it is (i) a large or medium scale industry
 and (ii) it manufactures and sells goods within the five years of its going
 into production, the sale of such goods is exempt irrespective of the nature
 or classification of goods. Similar goods may be manufactured by another G
 unit but if it does not satisfy the above two requirements, the goods
 manufactured and sold by it would not be entitled to exemption from tax.
 Indeed, the goods manufactured by that very unit would not be eligible for
 exemption if they are manufactured after the expiry of five years from the
 date it goes into production and/or sells them beyond the said period. The
 period of exemption may also vary from unit to unit depending on the date H
    130                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   of commencement of production in each unit. For the above reasons, we arc
    of the opinion that the exemption granted under the aforesaid government
    order does not satisfy the requirements of Section 8 (2-A).

          We may point out that this was also the view taken by this court in two
     earlier cases. In Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. State of Haryana, [1976]
B    4 S.C.C. 27, the question was whether the poles and cables sold by the
     appellant therein to Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking were exempt from
     central sales tax by virtue of the fact that Section 5 (2) (a) (iv) of the Punjab
     Sales Tax Act exempted "sales to any undertaking supplying electrical
     energy to the public under a licence or sanction granted or deemed to have
     been granted under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, of goods for use by it
c    in the generation or distribution of such energy" from the State tax. The
     claim of the appellant was negatived by Ray, C.J., speaking for himself and
     Beg and Jaswant Singh, JJ., holding that the exemption granted under
     Section 5 (2) (a) (iv) of the State Act was not a general exemption but an
     exemption operative only in specified circumstances and under specified
     conditions. It was pointed out that the specified circumstance in that case
D    was that the sale must be to an undertaking engaged in supplying electrical
    energy to the public under a licence and the specified condition was that the
    goods purchased by the undertaking must be used for generation or
    distribution of electrical energy. If any of these circumstances are not
    satisfied, it was pointed out, the sale of such goods was not exempt from
    tax. It was emphasised that "general exemption means that the goods
E   should be totally exempt from tax before similar exemption from the levy of
    Central sales tax can become available. Where the exemption from taxation
    is conferred by conditions or in certain circumstances there is no exemption
    from tax generally". (emphasis added). In our respectful opinion, the ratio
     of this decision clearly concluded the question arising in Pine Chemicals
     age.inst the assessees inasmuch as it was not a case where goods were
F    "totally exempt from tax." It was a case where the exemption operated or
     was attracted only if it was established that such goods were manufactured
     in a large or medium industrial unit within five years of its going into
     production and were sold within that period. As pointed out hereinbefore,
    the exemption was not with reference to goods but with reference to the
G    unit manufacturing the goods.

        In International Cotton Corporation (P) Ltd. Etc. Etc. v. Commercial
    Tax Officer, Hubli and Ors., [1975] 3 S.C.C. 585, Bench of this court
    comprising four learned Judges observed that "the object of sub-section
    (2A) of Section 8 is to exempt transaction of sale of any goods if they are
H   wholly exempt from tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State and
     COMMR. OF SALES TAXv. PINE CHEMICALS LTD. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.]       131

make the said sales chargeable at lower rates where under the Sales Tax Act A
of the State the sale transactions are chargeable to tax at a lower rate .... ",
though it is true, the point raised and determined in that case was ~ different
one. In our respectful opinion, the decision in Indian Aluminium which was
a decision rendered by a Bench of three learned Judges was binding upon
the Bench which decided the Pine Chemicals. (This Bench too comprised
three learned Judges.) It is, however, interesting to notice that when the B
above two decisions were brought to the notice of the Bench, it referred to
the ratio of the said decisions but neither followed it nor made any attempt
to distinguish it but proceeded to make it a basis for their decision
notwithstanding the fact that the said ratio ran exactly counter to the one
adopted by the Bench. The two decisions did not certainly support the
interpretation adopted in the judgment under review. On the contrary, they, C
and in particular the decision in Indian Aluminium, militated against the
said interpretation. It is for this reason, coupled with the fact that the
interpretation placed in the judgment under review on Section 8 (2-A) may
affect a large number of cases all over the country, that we agreed to re-
examine the issue, which we would not have agreed to ordinarily.
                                                                              D
     We may now refer to and examine the basis on which the judgment
under review holds that the exemption granted by Jammu and Kashmir
Government Order No. 159 is a general exemption within the meaning of
Section 8 (2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Bench agreed that "the
existence or otherwise of the three limitations under the explanation above
referred to on claiming exemption under Section 8 (2-A) of the Central E
Sales Tax Act will therefore, have. to be tested with reference to the
transaction of sale or purchase as the case may be" but then qualified the
words "sale or purchase, as the case may be", by adding "of the dealer who
claims the exemption in respect of his intrastate sale or purchase of the
same goods." It was further added: "thus the specified circumstances and
the specified conditions referred to in the explanation should be with F
reference to the local turnover of the same dealer who claims exemption
under Section 8 (2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act". In our respectful
opinion, however, sub-section (2-A) speaks of sale or purchase of goods
being exempt generally under the State Sales Tax enactment; it does not
speak of exemption qua the dealer, much less qua the unit manufacturing G
such goods. The exemption notification issued by the Jammu and Kashmir
Government granted the exemption qua the industrial unit manufacturing
the goods and the period within which they manufactured and sold and not
qua the goods. In the judgment under review, it has been further observed
that "the facts which the dealer has to prove to get the benefit of the
government orders are intended only to identify the dealer and the goods in H




                                                                                   '
                                                                '
     132                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A    respect of which the exemption is sought and they are not conditions or
     specifications of circumstances relating to the turnover sought to be
     exempted from payment of tax within the meaning ofthose·provisions. The
     specified circumstances and the specified conditions referred to in. the
     explanation should relate to the transaction of sale of the commodity and
     not identification of the dealer or the commodity in respect of which the
B    exemption is claimed." With respect, we are unable to appreciate the above
     reasoning which is at variance with the clear and simple language employed
     in Section 8 (2-A). -The language of the sub-section does not bear or admit
     the construction placed upon it in the judgment under review. We are
     therefore, of the opinion that the judgment under review suffers from a
     manifest error of law, an error apparent on the face of the record, and,
c    therefore, liable to be reviewed. We are also of the opinion that in the
     interest of law, it is necessary that the said error is rectified.

          Sri Raja Ram Aggarwal, learned counsel for one of the respondents-
     as'sessees submitted that the object behind Section 8 (2-A) was to bring
     about uniformity in the matter of incidence and rate of tax between the
D    State sales tax enactment and Central sales tax enactment. He submitted that
     where a particular sale or purchase is exempt from tax under the State sales
     tax enactment, it should equally be exempt under the Central enactment.
     While the bro3:d objective underlying Section 8 (2-A) is certainly the· one
     pointed out by the learned counsel, it is not possible or permissible to
     ignore the clear and unambiguous language employed in Section 8 (2-A).
·E   The sub-section does not say that wherever a particular sale· or purchase of
     goods is exempt from tax under the State enactment, it would equally be
     exempt from tax under the Central enactment. It imposes a further and a
     very important requirement, viz., that the sale or purchase of goods, in
     respect of which exemption is claimed under the Central Act, should b1..
     exempt from tax generally under the State enactment. Not stopping with
F
     that, the sub-section proceeds to explain and define what do the words
     "exempt from tax generally under the sales tax law of the appropriate State"
     mean? In this view of the matter, acceptance of the contention urged by Sri
     Aggarwal would be a case of over-simplification and violative of the
     express language employed in the sub-section.
G
          Sri K.K. Venugopal urged strongly that the error, if any, in the
     judgment under review is not an error apparent on the face of the record,
     that it is also a possible view and that, in any event, it cannot be said that
     the view taken in the judgment under review is a view which could not
     have been possibly taken. Learned counsel pointed out that a large number
H     of High Courts have taken the same view and hence, the error, if any, in the
     COMMR. OF SALES TAX v. PINE CHEMICALS LTD. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.]    133

judgment under review is not an error apparent on the face of the record. A
With respect, we cannot agree. To us, the language employed in the sub-
section looks quite clear and unambiguous. It does not admit of any other
interpretation than the one placed by us. More important, it was already
construed by a Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction in Indian Aluminium
earlier. Another Bench of four learned Judges had also understood the
purport of the said sub-section in the same manner - vide International B
Cotton Corporation. In the light of the said binding decisions, it was not
open, with great respect, to the Bench deciding Pine Chemicals to place the
interpretation it did on the sub-section.

     We may reiterate that we have not allowed the learned counsel for the
review petitioners to question the correctness of the first three points C
decided in the judgment under review. We are told that Section 8 (B) of the
Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act permits refund of sales tax only
in cases where the dealer has not collected the same and that the question
whether the dealers herein did or did not collect the tax in respect of
transactions concerned herein has been left open by this court though a
finding against the dealer was recorded by the High Court. We are also told D
that proceedings for refund are now pending where the State has taken the
defence based on Section 8 (B) of the State enactment. We need express no
opinion in that behalf.

     So far as Review Petition Nos. 1374-76 of 1993 in Civil Appeal Nos.
3148-50of1989 (pertaining to Mis. K.C. Vanaspati) are concerned, we are E
told that the said case did not involve the interpretation of Section 8 (2-A)
of the Central Sales Tax Act. These review petitions, therefore, stand on a
different footing altogether.

     For the above reasons, Review Petitions (C) No. 1372-73 of 1993 in
Civil Appeals No. 2309-10of1989, Review Petition (C) No. 1381 of 1993 F
in Civil Appeal No. 3151 of 1989, Review Petition No. (C) 1377of1993 in
Civil Appeal No. 3151 of 1989 are allowed and the civil appeals preferred
by the dealers dismissed to the extent indicated above. Review Petitions (C)
No. 1374-76of1993 in Civil Appeals No. 3148-50of1989 are dismissed.
No costs.
                                                                            G
   Review Petitions (C) No. /753-55 of 1993 in Civil Appeals No. 5073-
75of1985.

     Civil Appeals No. 5073-75 of 1985 were disposed of by a Bench
comprising one of us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.) and N. Venkatachala, J.
following the judgment in Pine Chemicals, at the same time pointing out     H
    134                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   the error in the reasoning relating to the meaning of Section 8 (2-A) of the
    Central Sales Tax Act adopted in Pine Chemicals. Pine Chemicals was
    decided by a Bench of three learned Judges and was thus binding upon a
    Bench of two-Judges. Inasmuch as the judgment in Pine Chemicals is now
    being set aside insofar as the interpretation of Section 8 (2-A) is concerned
    and because the only issue involved in Civil Appeals No. 5073-75of1985
B   was the one relating to the meaning and applicability of the said sub-
    section, these review petitions are liable to be allowed for the very same
    reasons as are recorded in Review Petitions No. 1372-73 of 1993 and are
    accordingly allowed herewith. The judgment under review is set aside and
    Civil Appeals No. 5073-75 of 1985 preferred by the dealers-assessees are
    dismiss~d. No costs.
c
    A.G.                                              Review petitions allowed.