JUDGMENT
B.C. Chakrabarti (Chairman)
1. RN-261(T) of 1989 and RN-204(T) of 1989 arise out of the same writ application–one in regard to the main petition and the other relating to a prayer for extension of the interim order originally granted by the High Court. This case and RN-260(T) of 1989 are both at the instance of the same party, namely, Milk Food Limited. RN-246 of 1990 is an application by Himachal Milk Products Private Limited. All these cases relate to a point of law common to all of them. These have been heard together and this judgment shall govern all of them.
2. The case of the applicants in RN-260(T) of 1989 and RN-261(T) of 1989 may be briefly put as follows :
The applicant carries on dairy business having its dairy firm at Bhadurgarh, Patiala, in the State of Punjab with branches in different parts of India. The Calcutta branch was opened in April, 1975. The applicant No. 2 is a shareholder of the applicant No. 1. The applicants procured cow and buffalo milk for its said dairy at Bhadurgarh from in and around Bhadurgarh. The milk so procured is thereafter converted into skimmed milk powder (hereinafter referred to as “milk powder”). The milk powder is prepared by removing its fat contents and evaporating water contents of the milk. This milk powder serves every purpose for which liquid milk is used and dehydration is made only for the purpose of preservation and convenience of transportation and storage without damaging or depreciating the food value. The applicants import milk powder from its dairy at Bhadurgarh into West Bengal for the purpose of sale in West Bengal. The applicant No. 1 is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Under an erroneous impression and a mistake of law the applicant No. 1 also got itself registered as a dealer under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, in respect of the sale of milk powder. No tax is leviable under the 1941 Act or the 1954 Act on the sale of milk powder. The applicant No. 1 under a mistake of law paid taxes in respect of sales of milk powder within the State of West Bengal. Milk is an item which is exempt from tax under Section 6 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. It is entered in item No. 11 of Schedule I of the Act. By a notification bearing No. 886-F.T. dated May 1, 1955, in purported exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25 of the 1954 Act, it was specified that powdered or condensed milk whether skimmed or not, or whether mixed with any substance or not, should be taxed under the Act of 1954. Section 25 of the 1954 Act empowers the State Government, if it is of opinion that it would be in the public interest that a commodity which is liable to taxation under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, should be taxed under the Act of 1954 to specify such commodity by notification and direct that with effect from such date as may be fixed in the notification, the Act of 1941 shall cease to apply to such commodity and the Act of 1954 shall apply to it. The Notification dated May 1, 1955, is without jurisdiction and/or in excess of jurisdiction, illegal, void and of no effect. None of the conditions precedent for exercise of power under Section 25 of the 1954 Act, existed when the notification was made. Under the Act of 1954 commodities liable to tax cannot be imported into the State of West Bengal without obtaining necessary permits from the sales tax authorities. Under an erroneous impression and mistake of law the applicant No. 1 applied for and obtained such permits for importing milk powder into the State. The applicant filed monthly returns up to the end of August, 1979 and paid tax in respect of sale of milk powder. By an order dated July 26, 1977, the respondent No. 1, illegally assessed the sales of the said milk powder for the period from April 2, 1975 to March 31, 1976. The respondent No. 1 also made assessments for the period from April 1, 1976 to March 31, 1977, in respect of the sale of milk powder within the State. No order of assessment has been made or passed in respect of any period subsequent to March 31, 1977. The applicant was not aware that no tax was payable on the sale of milk powder within the State of West Bengal until August, 1979, when in course of consultation with the applicant’s Advocates the applicant came to know that they were not liable to pay any tax in respect of the said commodity. The payments made earlier were on an erroneous impression that tax was payable. Item No. 11 of Schedule I of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, was amended with retrospective effect by the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) and Repealing Act (8 of 1983) whereby after the word “milk” the following words were added, namely, “other than powdered or condensed milk”. By the said amendment the exemption from payment of sales tax in respect of powdered or condensed milk was withdrawn retrospectively. The amendment is arbitrary and discriminatory and is also unreasonable. The sale of milk of all types were exempt from payment of tax under the 1941 Act. The effect of the amendment is that powdered or condensed milk would no longer be treated as tax-free goods. There is practically no qualitative difference between milk in liquid form or powdered form. The purported classification sought to be made between milk powder and milk by the said amendment is without jurisdiction and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Commercially, milk powder and liquid milk are treated in all essential respects as one and the same commodity. The Legislature is not competent to tax a part of the same or similar goods and exempt the other part. Principally, on these allegations the applicants have prayed for a declaration that no tax is payable in respect of the sale of milk powder under the 1954 Act and the Amendment Act in so far as it excludes powdered or condensed milk from item No. 11 is ultra vires and unconstitutional. They have prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to levy any tax under the 1954 Act in respect of sales of powdered milk and not to take any steps or give any effect to the Amendment Act in so far as the same relates to exclusion of powdered or condensed milk retrospectively from item No. 11 of Schedule I of the Act of 1941. They have also prayed for refund of the amounts paid by the applicants in respect of sale of milk powder under a mistaken impression of law.
3. The case of the applicants in RN-260(T) of 1989 is exactly the same as stated above. The prayers are also identical.
4. In RN-246 of 1990, the same points have been agitated and similar prayers have been made. It is not, however, the case of the applicants in this case that they had paid any tax on the sale of powdered milk or condensed milk. They have merely challenged the vires of the notification dated May I, 1955 and subsequent notifications relating thereto.
5. The respondents did not file any separate affidavit-in-opposition in this case but prayed that the affidavits used in the other two cases may be permitted to be used in this case as well. The prayer was allowed.
6. The case of the respondents may be briefly stated thus :
They have substantially disputed the contention of the applicants that powdered milk and milk are identical. They have relied on the Notification dated May 1, 1955, by which powdered or condensed milk–whether skimmed or not or whether mixed with any substance or not–was declared as a commodity notified under Section 25 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. In doing so, an item exempt from tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, was not brought within the scope of the 1954 Act, for item 11 of the Schedule I never included powdered milk or condensed milk. The amending Act of 1983 was merely declaratory and clarificatory in nature. The contention that the notification and the retrospective amendment are ultra vires and unconstitutional, cannot be sustained. It is also their case that the Legislature was competent, particularly in regard to the fiscal matters to effect legislative amendments with retrospective effect. The Act was made retrospective in operation by express words. This apart, the amendment being merely clarificatory in nature, has to be, by necessary implication, retrospective. The respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the cases.
7. From the contentions as stated above the points that arise for determination are :
(1) whether milk and powdered milk are identical commodities and whether one includes the other as well ?
(2) if not, whether the notification dated May 1, 1955, issued under Section 25 of the 1954 Act could have been validly issued ?
(3) whether the retrospective operation of the amending Act of 1983 is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India ?
8. The points enumerated above as emerging from the respective cases of the parties clearly indicate that the principal point at issue is whether milk and powdered milk are identical commodities. If the answer to this question be in favour of the applicants, the other two points would have to be considered in detail. If, however, the point is answered in favour of the Revenue, the subsequent points would lose much of their importance.
9. So far as the first point is concerned, Dr. Pal emphatically argued that powdered milk is nothing but evaporated milk and as such, is covered by the expression “milk” as used in item 11 of Schedule I of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. It was argued that if they are identical in nature and character, the notification dated May 1, 1955, could not be validly issued because powdered milk being a form and variety of milk which was exempt from tax, could not be brought under the 1954 Act. In order to notify a commodity under Section 25 of the 1954 Act, the item must have to be a taxable item under the Act of 1941 and “milk” as such is an item exempt from tax.
10. In support of the contention that powdered milk is nothing but milk as used in item 11 of Schedule I, Dr. Pal heavily relied on a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Indodan Milk Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., reported in [1974] 33 STC 381, a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Agarwal & Co. reported in [1983] 52 STC 117 and a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Indodan Milk Products reported in [1980] 45 STC 498. The decisions by the Bombay and Madras High Courts were basically rendered following the views expressed by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
11. Before coming to consider these decisions, it may be pertinent to consider for ourselves whether milk and powdered milk are identical commodities and then consider the ratio of the decisions relied on by Dr. Pal.
12. In order to consider the point, we may usefully refer to the meaning of the expression “milk”. The expression has not been defined in the Act. The applicants have extensively referred to various authors to indicate the purpose, and effect of evaporating the water content of milk in its natural form. Upon a reference to the authorities quoted, it is stated that milk drying has found its major application as a means of preserving large quantities of milk surplus to requirements at flush periods for later use, that it is one of the simplest methods of conversion of surplus milk with a moisture content low enough not to promote bacterial growth, that the purpose is to preserve the valuable food elements they contain in as nearly an unchanged and natural condition as possible (emphasis ours), and that dried milk is nothing but milk and can be used as liquid milk and is also dealt with as milk in the trade.
13. The authorities quoted have particularly emphasised the fact that drying is resorted to principally for the purpose of preservation in bacteria-free condition for long period and convenience of transportation, in as nearly an unchanged and natural condition as possible. This necessarily takes us to the question as to what is the natural condition and form of milk. In Schedule I of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, the expression “milk” only is used in item 11 (before the amendment in 1983 by which the words “other than powdered or condensed milk” were added). When the expression “milk” only is used we have naturally to look for its natural meaning from other sources and accepted modes of interpretation. In appropriate cases, a reference to authoritative treatises and dictionaries may be conveniently and usefully, made for the purpose. In the Oxford Dictionary, the term is defined as an opaque white fluid secreted by the mammary gland of female mammals for the nourishment of their young. Chambers Dictionary also defines it in the same way. In Webster, and Random House Dictionaries, the expression is defined in like manner. The essential element common to all the definitions indicates that milk is a fluid secreted by the mammary gland of female mammals which serve as a nourishing food for their young. To serve its purpose as food it must be in liquid form.
14. Dr. Pal, however, argued that powdered milk may again be reduced to its natural form by adding requisite quantity of water to it. Yet the question remains whether until water is added to retransform it into liquid form, it retains all the qualities of milk and whether the commodity in the processed, namely, dehydrated form is the same as milk as generally understood in common parlance. Mr. Ghosh, appearing on behalf of the respondents, drew our attention to Chapter 12 relating to dairy products of the book on Chemical Analysis by David Pearson. There it is stated that milk can be considered as containing three basic components, namely, water, fat and non-fatty solids. The organic matter in the non-fatty portion consists mainly of the proteins casein, albumin and globulin, lactose and lactic and citric acids. We get herefrom what milk ordinarily means and what are its constituents. A reference may also be legitimately made to the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to find out the meaning of milk and milk products. Under the Rules, milk powder, skimmed milk powder, partly skimmed milk powder, infant milk food are all treated as milk products. There can be no controversy that milk and milk products are not identical.
15. We have indicated above what are the essential constituents of milk. We have further observed that according to the standards laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, powdered milk is considered as a milk product. In Encyclopaedia Britannica, as quoted in the case of Indodan Milk Products [1974] 33 STC 381 (All.) [FB] also the learned authors have grouped powdered milk in the category of milk products.
16. Dr. Pal, however, argued that the crucial test, in a case where the expression is not defined is to ascertain what the common people understand by the expression. He contends that when a person uses powdered milk by adding water to it, he, in fact, drinks milk, for drying did not factually result in any change in the character and identity of the commodity. May be it is milk in some form other than fresh milk but, none-the-less, it remains milk for all practical purposes.
17. Mr. Ghosh, on the other hand, argued that the average common man whose interests were sought to be protected by enumerating the exempted items from serial 1 up to 11 of Schedule I would clearly suggest that the expression “milk” as used in item 11 was nothing other than milk in liquid form as ordinarily understood by the common man and not powdered milk usually sold in containers at a relatively higher price.
18. Both parties, therefore, rely on the common parlance theory. But before coming to consider this aspect we may now consider the cases relied on by Dr. Pal. The first case is the one reported in [1974] 33 STC 381 (All.) [FB] (Indodan Milk Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.). The assessee was a dealer in condensed milk, etc. The name of the company prima facie, suggests how the company itself treated the commodity of which it was a dealer. It was treated as a milk product. In this case, it was held that milk meant milk in any form including condensed milk and not merely as milk obtained and sold in its natural form. On the same analogy, it was argued by Dr. Pal that if partial drying of natural milk and then adding of some sweetening element and preservative did not constitute any change in the character and identity of the commodity, then there is no reason why total dehydration of natural milk would result in a different commodity. Mr. Ghosh, on the other hand, argues that the point at issue in that case was not correctly decided. It was observed in that case (at page 385) that indisputably the secretion obtained from mammary glands of cows and buffaloes in its natural form is considered as milk. But it was then observed that with the progress of dairying in the country the milk obtained in natural form is often pasteurised and yet its character as milk remains, even though by means of pasteurisation, it is made bacteria-free for preservation for a longer period. There can be no controversy that mere pasteurisation may not result in such change so that milk loses its character and identity as milk. In this context, it may be useful to refer to an observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Shiphy International [1988] 69 STC 325 ; AIR 1988 SC 992. There it has been observed that “every processing does not bring about a change in the character and identity of the commodity. The nature and extent of processing may vary from one case to another…. But it is only when the change or a series of changes take the commodity to the point where commercially it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but instead is recognised as a new and distinct commodity that it can be said that a new commodity, distinct from the original, has come into being”.
19. It follows from the above observations that mere pasteurisation in order to make the milk bacteria-free may not change the character of the commodity which still retains its essential character as milk and is known as such.
20. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court then observed that “fluid milk, after it is concentrated and converted into condensed milk, remains milk”. Most respectfully we would like to add that it may become akin to milk only when required quantity of water is added to it. What, thereafter comes into being may perhaps be called reconstituted milk but sweeter in taste and, therefore, to an extent dissimilar from natural milk.
21. The Allahabad High Court observed that “by no stretch of imagination can it be said that water is an essential constituent of milk and if its proportion is reduced, milk ceases to be milk”. We have the authority of David Pearson (referred to earlier) that milk can be considered as containing some basic components of which water is one. We know that the water content in natural milk is the largest in proportion to other components.
22. A reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Sakarwala Brothers [1967] 19 STC 24. The question that arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether patasa, harda and alchidana fall within the definition of “sugar” in entry 47 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and whether their sales were exempt from payment of sales tax. The Supreme Court held that patasa, etc., were various forms of sugar. Relying on this decision, the Allahabad High Court observed that by evaporating water from milk its essential characteristic remains the same and what is obtained is milk in a concentrated form. The decision of the Supreme Court was rendered in the context of sugar as defined in the Act. According to the definition, sugar means any form of sugar containing more than 90 per cent of sucrose. The particular items in question answered the description of sugar in any form. In the absence of such a definition it cannot, perhaps, be said that evaporated milk is equivalent to milk simpliciter. Different considerations could arise if the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, defined milk as milk in any form containing certain specified percentage of its components. Therefore, we are unable to agree that the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court can be applied to the facts of this case.
23. Finally, while accepting the proposition that milk in its natural form may be a commodity commercially different from milk in condensed form, the Allahabad High Court held that as Section 4(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, has granted exemption on sale of milk in any form and, therefore, even if various forms of milk are different commercial commodities, the exemption equally applies to all those commodities.
24. Such being the position, we do not feel persuaded by the reasonings for a conclusion that milk and powdered milk are commercially identical commodities. The Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, does not grant exemption to milk in any form.
25. The Bombay case relied on by Dr. Pal [1983] 52 STC 117 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Agarwal & Co.) is clearly distinguishable. There the question that arose for consideration was whether “skimmed milk powder” falls within the scope of entry 36 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Under Section 5 of that Act, sale and purchase of goods specified in Schedule A is free from all taxes. The entry No. 36 of the Schedule A at the relevant time read as follows : “Milk, whole or separated or reconstituted.” In the context of that definition of entry No. 36, the question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee. The court was not required to consider whether skimmed milk and milk are commercially identical commodities. All that was required to be seen was whether skimmed milk powder falls within the scope of entry No. 36. There can be little doubt that it did. Whether reconstituted milk and milk as understood in common parlance and by the mercantile world are identical in character and quality was not a relevant consideration there.
26. The third case relied on by Dr. Pal is the one reported in [1980] 45 STC 498 (Mad.) (State of Tamil Nadu v. Indodan Milk Products). The decision in this case is based primarily on [1974] 33 STC 381 (All.) [FB] (Indodan Milk Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax). Practically, no further reasonings are given in the Madras case. We preferred to discuss the Allahabad case in some detail as the other two cases relied on this case for the ultimate decision. We have already indicated our views on the subject.
27. Mr. Ghosh, besides distinguishing the cases referred to by Dr. Pal, also relied on an observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Healthways Dairy Products Co. v. Union of India reported in AIR 1976 SC 2221. The Supreme Court observed that in common parlance milk means milk as milched from cattle.
28. Mr. Ghosh relied on a number of decisions to indicate how different commodities made from the same commodity have been treated as commercially different commodities, such as raw hides and skins and tanned hides and skins [A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor and Co. v. State of Madras [1964] 15 STC 719 (SC)], raw tobacco and chewing tobacco [State of Madras v. Swasthik Tobacco Factory [1966] 17 STC 316 (SC)], groundnut oil and vanaspati [Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. AIR 1963 SC 791]. A somewhat different note was struck in the case of Tungabhadra Industries [1960] 11 STC 827 (SC). It is felt unnecessary to refer to all the cases referred to by Mr. Ghosh. Most of those cases do not really touch the point at issue.
29. These are practically the main arguments advanced by the parties, one suggesting that milk and powdered milk are not different while the other contending that there are several points of difference between the two so as to make them commercially different. Both, however, relied on the common parlance theory, namely, what the average common men dealing with and dealing in the commodity mean by the expressions. It may be also worthwhile to find out what was the legislative intent expressed by the use of the word “milk” in item 11 of Schedule I to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
30. Mr. Ghosh argued that read in the collocation of the different items preceding item 11 it is obvious that the Legislature intended to exempt only such items which the average common man needs for daily use. They need milk if they can afford it but certainly not the expensive brand of powdered milk marketed by different companies in different brand names. The expression “milk” as used in our view means milk in its natural form as obtained from milching cattle. To include powdered milk within the category of milk as commonly understood, would amount to stretching the meaning too wide. Thus in our view, milk does not include powdered milk. The contention of Dr. Pal is that powdered milk does not lose its character and identity as milk when requisite quantity of water is added. However, from the very nature of things it is apparent that powdered milk as such is not milk. It is only when water is added to it that we get something which may be called a drink somewhat similar to milk. But even then such a drink does not correspond to milk in its natural form in all respects. The reasons we shall presently discuss.
31. We have noted already what are the basic constituents of milk. To repeat, they are water, fat and non-fatty solids which consists mainly of proteins casein, albumin and globulin, lactose and lactic and citric acids. In the chapter relating to Digestion in Encyclopaedia Britannica, it is observed that protein digestion begins in the stomach where food encounters pepsin and hydrochloric acid. Pepsin has a unique capacity to digest native protein, that is, protein that has not been altered by the action of other reagents or by heat. Dehydration of the watery content of milk is obviously done by means of heating whether by spraying or rolling methods. Therefore, the nature of protein as obtained in powdered milk is different and deficient from the native protein found in natural milk. The nutritional value is thereby partly affected. Similarly, albumin in milk is denaturised by the drying process employed to transform it into powder form. In such a situation it is difficult to accept the contention that simply by adding water to powdered milk one gets milk with all its essential qualities and constituents intact They are undoubtedly transformed and that is why it is treated as a milk product and not as milk simpliciter.
32. In fine, therefore, milk powder is a milk product. Some of the essential characteristics of milk and its constituents are, if not lost, at least diminished considerably. They are also different in appearance. In common parlance, one does not take milk and milk powder as synonymous. One does not go to a stationery shop to buy a litre of milk. Similarly, one does not go to the milkman for buying a packet of powdered milk. It is common knowledge that in market places in rural areas milk in its natural form is even now available.
33. It is a well-established and accepted mode of interpretation that statutory language is not read in isolation but in its context and the words should be so construed as to best harmonise with the subject and context. We may take judicial notice of the fact that in 1941 when the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act was enacted, powdered milk was not much in vogue and one did not consider it as a substitute for milk in its natural form. With the advancement of scientific technology of dairying process, powdered milk gradually came to occupy a place of importance, particularly in urban areas. But in 1941 that certainly was not the picture. Therefore, when the expression “milk” is used in the Schedule in collocation with the immediately preceding items, namely, cereals (except when sold in sealed containers), bread, meat which has not been cured or frozen, fresh fish, vegetable known as “sabji” (except when sold in sealed containers), gur and molasses and salt, one would have no hesitation in holding that what was meant or intended to be meant by the word “milk” was milk in its natural form. It is permissible under all circumstances to have regard to the state of things existing at the time when the statute was passed. Having considered the question in that perspective we are unable to hold that the expression “milk” as used in the Act did include milk in any form or a reconstituted milk, far less a milk product like milk powder. If the entry “milk” is construed according to the common parlance meaning, it must mean only milk in its natural form and not milk powder.
34. In that view of the matter, it follows that powdered milk was not an item exempted from tax under Schedule I to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Consequently, the notification dated May 1, 1955, issued under Section 25 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, was competent and valid. It is significant to note that from 1955 until the present writ applications were filed in 1978-79 there was no challenge to the notification by which powdered milk and some other similar items were notified under Section 25 of the 1954 Act. This also is an indication as to how the tradesmen in general dealing with the articles took it to mean. It is also significant to note that the applicant-company, i.e., Milk Food Limited, after setting up their office in Calcutta, got themselves registered as dealers, filed returns and even paid taxes for sometime. They say that they did so under a mistake of law and came forward with the challenge when they were properly advised. The initial reaction on their part and the inaction by other traders in the line for such a long span of time beginning from 1955, is suggestive of how the traders accepted it. True, there is no question of estoppel, but their silence is certainly a significant pointer as to the meaning and effect of the notification.
35. Having considered all the pros and cons of the matter, we are of the opinion that “milk” and powdered milk are not identical commodities and that powdered milk being a milk product was not an item exempted from tax under item 11 of Schedule I to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The first point formulated for consideration is, therefore, answered against the applicants. In view of this finding, the second point, namely, whether the notification dated May 1, 1955, could be validly issued under Section 25 of the 1954 Act, must have to be answered in the affirmative.
36. There was yet another question raised, namely, the scope and effect of the amendment in 1983 by which item 11 was amended by adding the words “other than powdered or condensed milk” with retrospective effect. According to the applicants the amendment was violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India while according to the respondents, the amendment was merely declaratory and clarificatory in nature. Although considerable arguments were advanced on this point, we think, in view of our findings on the main issue, this question loses much of its importance. However, in view of our other findings, the amendment must be held to be merely clarificatory and, therefore, valid even with its retrospective operation.
37. In view of our findings above, all the three applications fail and are dismissed on contest. The bank guarantee furnished by Milk Food Ltd. in terms of interim order will be encashed and adjusted against demand for tax.
38. There will be no order as to costs.
P.C. Banerjee (Technical Member)
I agree
L.N. Ray (Judicial Member)
I agree