Amareshwar Sahay, J.@mdashIn the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for, for the following reliefs:
(i) For declaration that the supply of medicines, surgical items, vaccines, X-ray items etc which are supplied by the petitioner to its indoor patients during the course of their treatment is not a transaction which comes within the meaning of "Sale" as defined u/s 2(t) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and, therefore, is not taxable under the said Act.
(ii) For declaration that the petitioner does not come within the definition of "Dealer" as defined under the provisions of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and, therefore, is not required to be registered as "Dealer" under the said Act.
(iii) To quash the notice dated 31/3/2005 contained in Annexure- 3 to the writ application issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur, asking the petitioner to explain as to why an action be not taken against it for not registering itself as registered "Dealer".
(iv) To quash Annexure-5, i.e. the letter No. 261 dated 05/05/2005 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur, whereby the petitioner was held liable to pay sales tax.
(v) To quash the order contained in Annexure-13 to the writ application dated 18/03/2006 relating to the financial years 2001-02 to 2004-05 whereby the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur passed an order for assessment of the sales tax against the petitioner u/s 17 (5) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 for the last four financial years.
(vi) To quash the demand notices dated 20th March 2006, contained in Annexure-14 series, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur, u/s 17 (5) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981.
2. The facts, which are relevant for the purpose of decision of the present case, are stated herein below:
The petitioner Tata Main Hospital, hereinafter referred as TMH, situated at Jamshedpur was established by Tata Steel Limited and is a division of Tata Steel Limited. TMH is providing treatment and medical facilities to the indoor patients, who either employees or ex-employees or their family members of the Tata Steel Limited as well as the non-employee indoor patients also. In course of treatment whatever medicines, surgical items, vaccines, x-ray items are supplied to such indoor patients, who are either employees, ex-employees or their family members are supplied free of cost and for that TMH does not charge anything from them. TMH also provides treatment and medical facilities to other indoor non-employee patients, i.e. the patients, who are other than the employees of the Tata Steel Limited but those non-employees indoor patients are to pay charges to TMH for their treatment by making payment towards Registration, Blood Bank, Pathology, O.T., Pharmacy, Accommodation and Doctors fees etc.
3. An inspection of the TMH was made on 02/09/2005 by a team of Commercial Tuxes Authorities. Annexure-9 to the writ petition is their inspection report. It was reported by them in course of enquiry that one Mr. Singhal who was Financial Analyst disclosed that no separate Account is maintained in the TMH. The TMH only issues bills which are forwarded to the general office of Tata Steel Limited therefore detailed description and whatever data is required by the department can be had from the general office of Tata Steel Limited. He also disclosed that the medical store department of the TMH purchases medicines mostly from the local market except those medicines which are not available in the local market are purchased from outside the State also but such purchases is very less.
The enquiry report further reveals that one Bill dated 23/03/2005 being Bill No. BN/05/005687 dated 23/03/2005, issued to one Mr. Somesh Mahanti, was examined from which it appeared that the TMH has charged the following amount under different heads:
(i) Registration - Rs. 100.00
(ii) Blood Bank - Rs. 1275.00
(iii) Pathology - Rs. 1980.00
(iv) O.T. Package - Rs. 1200.00
(v) Pharmacy - Rs. 1287.00
(vi) Accommodation+ Doctor Fees - Rs. 4250.00
____________________________
Total - Rs.10,592.00
_____________________________
The enquiry team found that the charges under the heads ''Registration'', ''Blood bank'', ''Pathology'', ''O.T.'' were made in the shape of consultancy and others. Amount charged against ''Blood Bank'' was not taxable. The amount charged under heads "Pathology" and "O.T." are the charges for consultancy and surgical operation. The amount charged under the head "Accommodation + Doctor" was the charge for "Bed" and Doctors fee as well as the diet supplied to the patient whereas the amount charged under the head "Pharmacy" was the charge against supply of medicines to the patient, which is charged from the non-employee patients.
4. According to the inspecting team, the amount which was charged against the head "Pharmacy" relates to sale of medicine. Since the said amount was charged for sale of medicines and, therefore, u/s 3 of the Bihar Finance Act the same is exigible, because of the fact that no detail regarding sale and purchase of medicines were supplied to the team and, therefore, under the provision of Section 33(i) of the Act, the petitioner TMH was directed to attend the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Town Circle, Jamshedpur with relevant documents relating to purchase and sale of medicines for hearing.
5. Ultimately, after hearing the parties, the order of assessment as contained in Annexure-13, was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jamshedpur, on 18/03/2006 u/s 17 (5) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 for the years 2001-02 to 2004-05, which is under challenge in the present writ application.
6. From perusal of Annexure-13 to the writ petition it appears that the assessing officer in his order has held that Tata Steel Limited is a "Dealer" and it runs TMH as its ancillary activities and, therefore, TMH, which is an ancillary, also becomes a "Dealer" and, therefore, they are liable to pay tax, but they have not got themselves registered as "Dealer" nor did they file any such application for such registration and, therefore, u/s 17 (5) of the Bihar Finance Act they are liable to pay tax for the last four financial years and, accordingly, the sales tax was assessed for the financial years 2001-02 to 2004-05.
Pursuant to the said order as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ application, demand notices were issued as contained in Annexure-14 series, which are also under challenge in this writ application.
7. There is no dispute of this fact that TMH supplies medicines, surgical items, vaccines, x-ray items etc. to the employee indoor patients and the aforesaid items, which are supplied in course of the treatment of employee indoor patients, ex-employee and their family members, TMH does not charge a single paisa from them and they are given treatment totally free of cost and, therefore, imposition of sales tax on those items does not and cannot arise. Learned G.P.-III also conceded in this regard.
8. The question to be considered and decided in the present case, is as to whether the supply of the medicines, surgical items, vaccines and x-ray items etc. to the non-employee indoor patients admitted in TMH for treatment for which TMH realizes charge, comes within the purview of "Sale" as defined u/s 2(t) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, so as to make TMH liable to get themselves registered as "Dealer" under the Bihar Finance Act and whether they are liable to pay sales tax on such supply of medicines, surgical items, vaccines and x-ray items etc, to the indoor patients, which are used in course of their treatment in TMH.
9. It is also important to note that vide notification No. Bikrikar/San-1005/76-14199 F.T. dated 15/12/1976 effective from 01/01/1977 issued u/s 7 (3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, it has been notified that all the medical institutions are exempted from ambit of sales tax provided that any such medical Institution proves to the satisfaction of the assessing authority that there is no intention of profit and that actually no profit is being made from the transaction. The said notification has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ application.
10. Now, let us examine as to whether the transaction of supply of medicines, surgical items, vaccines, x-ray items etc. to those indoor patients in course of their treatment for which TMH realizes charge from those parents can be said to be "Sale" and whether these articles, which are being supplied to those patients are covered within the meaning of definition of goods and whether the supplier of those articles comes within the definition of "Dealer" as defined under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 or not?
11. Dr. Debi Prasad Pal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the charges, which are being realized from the non-employee indoor patients by TMH are composite charge or package charge for rendering medical services to such non-employee indoor patients and such composite package charges are indivisible service contract. In rendering such services, the supply of medicines to the non-employee indoor patients at the cost price is incidental to and part of the services, which is rendered by TMH. According to Dr. Debi Pal, the contract being a service contract and since it is indivisible. The medicines are actually not sold to those patients but are supplied by TMH and used in treatment of those patients and for which cost price is realized from them therefore, such transaction is not exigible.
Elaborating his argument, Dr. Pal further submitted that when the medicine is being administered to a patient or a syringe is used in injection in the body of the patient, in course of his treatment there is no sale of good. He further submitted that the TMH does not provide or sale medicines to any out side patient, who is not admitted in TMH for any treatment.
12. Dr. Debi Pal, learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner is supplying those articles, i.e. medicines, surgical items, vaccines, x-ray items etc. to the patients as a part of composite services, which are rendered by TMH to the indoor patients. Such supply of medicines etc. which are administered to the indoor patients are part of its Hospital services and this cannot cover under the definition of business of selling goods and the petitioner cannot be said to be a "Dealer" as defined u/s 2 (e) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. He further submitted that u/s 2 (e) of the Bihar Finance Act a "Dealer" must be a person who carries on business of buying, selling or supplying goods for consideration, whereas in the present case the supply of medicines etc. by TMH to its indoor patients, who are given treatment in TMH, are part and parcel of service rendered by TMH to those patients therefore, it does not constitute sale of goods. As a matter of fact those non-employee indoor patients, who are admitted in TMH for treatment, pay a composite charge or a package charge, which includes various items like registration, blood bank, pathology, accommodation plus Doctor fees etc. and these charges, which are realized, are composite charges and it cannot be broken or segregated. The supply of medicines, surgical items, vaccines, x-ray films & plates etc. by TMH for the treatment of the patients within the TMH cannot be considered to be ''Sale'' since the TMH is not carrying on business in selling such medicines to the indoor patients.
In support of his submissions, Dr. Pal relied on the decision in the case of" "State of Madras v. Gannom Dunkerley and Company (Madras) Ltd. reported in 9 STC 353 (SC) and the case of "
13. Challenging the impugned order of assessment, contained in Annexure-13 to the writ application, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Assessing Officer wrongly assessed the tax against the petitioner by only dealing with the question that the petitioner was a ''''Dealer" carrying on business of selling goods. It is contended that the Assessing Officer has taken the purchase amount of entire medicines, which the petitioner has purchased from the market as the same price for such medicines and imposed sales tax thereon. In fact 70 to 80 percent of such medicines was purchased from the market are administered to the employees, ex-employees or their dependants from whom no charge for supply of medicines etc. is realized, therefore, imposition of Sales Tax on those medicines, which are supplied free of cost to the employee or ex-employee or their family members are absolutely wrong.
14. Mr. Jhunjhunwala, learned G.P-III submitted that the supply of medicines, surgical items, x-ray films etc. by TMH to its non-employee indoor patients for which TMH is realizing charge comes within the definition of "Sale" because there is consideration of money and there is actual passing of goods to the buyers hence the supply of such items are covered under the definition of "Sale" u/s 2 (t) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. According to Mr. Jhunjhunwala, the petitioner is in fact selling those medicines and other items which are supplied to the non-employee indoor patients in course of their treatment because the patients are paying for those items to TMH therefore, the said transaction comes within the definition of "sale of goods" and, accordingly, the petitioner comes within the purview of "Dealer" as defined under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. Therefore the petitioner has rightly been assessed and held liable for payment of sales tax by the taxing authority as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ application.
In support of his submissions, Mr. Jhunjhunwala has relied on the decision in the case of "East India Hotels Limited v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 121 STC 46 and a Division Bench''s decision of Patna High Court in the case of "Charu Pharmacy and Clinic v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 32 STC 265 : 1974 BLJR 207.
15. "Sale" has been defined u/s 2 (t) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, which reads as under:
2(t) ''Sale'' means any transfer of property in goods for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration but does not include a mortgage or hypothecation of or a change or pledge on goods, and includes.-
(i) transfer of property in any goods, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract;
(ii) transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract;
(iii) delivery of goods on hire purchase or any system of payment by instalments;
(iv) transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period);
(v) supply of goods made by a society, trust, club or association, whether incorporated or not, to its members or otherwise;
(vi) supply by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner, whatsoever, of goods being food or any drink whether or not intoxicating;
And such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods shall be deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person making the transfer, delivery or supply, and all grammatical variations and cognate expression shall be construed accordingly;
And "purchase" means such acquisition of property in goods or purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer, delivery or supply is made.
Explanation-I. - A transfer or acquisition of goods on hire purchase or under any other system in which payment of valuable consideration is made by instalments, shall, notwithstanding the fact that the seller retains that title in the goods as a security for the payment of the valuable consideration or for any other reasons, be deemed to be a sale or purchase.
Explanation-II- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, two independent purchases or sales shall, for the purpose of this part, be deemed to have taken place-
(a) when the goods are transferred from principal to his selling agent and, from the selling agent to the purchaser; or
(b) When the goods are transferred from the seller to a buying agent to his principal, it the agent is found-
(i) to have sold the goods at one rate and to have passed on the sale price to his principal at another rate; or
(ii) to have purchased the goods at one rate and to have passed on to his principal at another rate; or
(iii) not to have accounted to his principal for the collections or deductions made by him in the sales or purchases effected by him or on behalf of his principal; or
(iv) to have acted for a fictitious or non-existent principal;
16. Whereas the "Dealer" has been defined u/s 2 (e) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, which reads as under:
2(e) "Dealer" means any person who carries on (whether regularly or otherwise) the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods, directly or indirectly, for cash, or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or valuable consideration and includes-
(i) a local authority, a body corporate, a company, any cooperative society or other society, club, firm, Hindu undivided family or other association of persons which carries on such business;
(ii) a factor, broker, commission agent, Declared agent, or any other mercantile agent, by whatsoever name called, and whether of the same description as hereinbefore mentioned or not, who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing, goods belonging to any principal whether disclosed or not; and
(iii) an auctioneer who carries on the business of selling or auctioning goods belonging to any principal, whether disclosed or not an whether the offer of the intending purchaser is accepted by him or by the principal or a nominee of the principal.
Explanation I- Every person who acts as an a gent, in the State of Bihar or a dealer residing outside the State of Bihar and buys, sells, supplies or distributes, in the State or acts on behalf of such dealer as-
(i) a mercantile agent as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (3 of 1930);or
(ii) an agent for handling of goods or documents of title relating to goods; or
(iii) an agent for the collection or the payment of the sale price of goods or as a guarantor for such collection or payment,
And every local branch or office in the State of Bihar of a firm registered out-side the State of Bihar or a company or other body corporate, the principal office, or headquarters whereof is outside the State of Bihar shall be deemed to be a dealer for the purposes of this Act.
Explanation II- A Government which whether or not in the course of business, buys, sells or distributes goods, directly or otherwise, for cash or for deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration, shall be deemed to be a dealer for the purposes of this Act.
17. Entry-54 of List II of the Constitution of India empowers the State Government to impose tax on sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers. Entry 92 A of the List-I empowers the Central Government to impose tax on sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of interstate trade or commerce. Prior to 46th amendment of the Constitution, composite contracts like work contracts, hire purchase contracts and catering contracts were not assessable as contracts for sale of goods. By 46th amendment of the Constitution, Article 336 (29-A) of the Constitution was amended by inserting a definition of "tax on the sale or purchase of goods". After amendment the definition reads as follows:
366 (29-A) ''tax on the sale or purchase of goods'' includes-
(a) a tax on the transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, or property in any goods for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
(b) a tax on the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract;
(c) a tax on the delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment by installments;
(d) a tax on the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
(e) a tax on the supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
(f) a tax on the supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration,
and such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods shall be deemed to be sale of those goods by the person making the transfer, delivery or supply and a purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer, delivery or supply is made;
18. In the light of 46th Amendment the definition of sale within the meaning of Section 2 (t) of Bihar Finance Act, was amended.
19. Now, let us examine the decisions cited by the parties.
The first decision cited on behalf of the petitioner is the case of "State of Madras v. Gannom Dunkerley and Company madras Ltd. reported in 9 STC 353 (SC) wherein it has been held that the expression "sale of goods" in Entry 48 in List II Schedule VII of the Government of India Act, 1935, cannot, be construed in its popular sense but must be interpreted in its legal sense and should be given the same meaning which it has in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. It was also held that in order to constitute a sale it is necessary that there should be an agreement between the parties for the purpose of transferring title to goods, which pre-supposes capacity to contract, it must be supported by money consideration, and that as a result of the transaction property must actually pass in the goods. Unless all these elements are present, there can be no sale. Thus, if merely title to the goods passes but not as a result of any contract between the parties, express or implied, there is no sale. So also if the consideration for the transfer is not money but other valuable consideration, then be exchanged or barter but not a sale.
20. The other case cited by the petitioner is the case of "
45. Of all the different kinds of composite transactions the drafters of the Forty-sixth Amendment chose three specific situations, a works, contract, a hire-purchase contract and a catering contract to bring them within the fiction of a deemed sale. Of these three, the first and third involve a kind of service and sale at the same time. Apart from these two cases where splitting of the service and supply has been constitutionally permitted in Sub-clauses (b) and (f) of Clause (29-A) of Article 366, there is no other service, which has been permitted to be so split. For example, the Sub-clauses of Article 366(29A) do not cover hospital services. Therefore, it during the treatment of a patient in a hospital, he or she is given a pill, can the Sales Tax Authorities tax the transaction as a sale? Doctors, lawyers and other professionals render service in the course of which can it be said that there is a sale of goods when a doctor writes out and hands over a prescription or a lawyer drafts a document and delivers it to his/her client? Strictly speaking, with the payment of fees, consideration does pass from the patient or client to the doctor or lawyer for the documents in both cases.
46. The reason why these services do not involve a sale for the purposes of Entry 54 of List II is, as we see it, for reasons ultimately attributable to the principles enunciated in
21. In the above quoted para-46 of this very judgment while interpreting the principle laid down in Gannon Dunkerley''s case, it has been held that if there is an instrument of contract which may be composite in form in any case other than the exceptions in Article 366(29A), unless the transaction in truth represents two distinct and separate contracts and is discernible as such, then the State would not have the power to separate the agreement to sell from the agreement to render service, and impose tax on the sale.
22. Thus, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited"(supra) the test of deciding whether the contract falls into one category or the other is as to what is the "substance of contract". According to the Supreme Court, it has to be seen as to what is the dominant nature test of the contract.
23. The decision in the case of "East India Hotels Limited v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 121 STC 46 which has been relied by the counsel for the State, the Supreme Court has held that when a customer goes to a restaurant and orders food and in respect of which he pays the price indicated therein and the said food items are supplied to him it would clearly be a case of transfer of property in goods to the customer. Whether the customer eats the entire or part of the dish or chooses not to eat at all would make no difference if he pays for the dishes supplied. The moment the dish is supplied to the customer and the sale price is paid by him it amounts to be a sale.
The above case before the Supreme Court was not a case of service contract or a case of composite charges. Whereas in the present case the facts are clearly distinguishable because undisputedly in the present case the TMH is not selling any medicines or surgical items to any out door persons or patients, who are not admitted in the TMH for treatment rather the medicines, surgical items, x-ray films and plates etc., are supplied to those indoor patients, which were essentially required for the treatment of those indoor patients.
24. The counsel for the State also relied on a decision of Patna High Court in the case of "Charu Pharmacy and Clinic v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 32 STC 265 (P) : 1974 BLJR 207. In this case the fact was that the Doctor was running the pharmacy and the clinic and he used to examine patients, who went to him for treatment. He used to draw prescription and supplied medicines to them from the pharmacy on payment of price of medicines. The charges, which were paid by the patients, were the charges for the supply of medicines. The plea of the assessee (the Doctor) is that he used to charge consolidated amount from his patients which included the value of the medicines used in course of treatment and the fee for this professional skill, was not accepted by the High Court than it was not a case the assessee used to treat the patients and charge the consolidated amount rather it was a clear case where the Doctor was charging price to the supply of medicines and in those circumstances it was held that the assessee (Doctor) was held to be dealer engaged in the business of selling medicines for price and the plea of rendering consolidated charges for service and medicines was rejected.
This case is also of no help to the counsel for the State because in the present case the supply of medicines, surgical items, vaccines, x-ray films & plates to the non-employee indoor patients by the TMH was part and parcel and incidental to the medical services rendered to those indoor patients.
25. Considering the facts of the present case, the argument advanced on behalf of the respective parties and the law in the subject noticed above it is to be held that in the present case, the medicines, which are supplied to the indoor patients are administered in course of treatment to those patients in the TMH. Therefore, it appears that the dominant nature test of contract is to provide medical services and in providing such medical services the medicines are administered, surgical items, x-ray plates and films are used, which are incidental to and a part of the medical services rendered by the TMH to the patients and for that the TMH is realizing charges against the head Pharmacy without giving particulars and break-up as to what is the charge being realized for medicines, what is the charge being realized for surgical items and for x-ray films and plates etc. used in course of treatment to those indoor patients and, therefore, it cannot be said that the medicines, surgical items, x-ray films and plates etc, were sold by the TMH to the indoor patients. In fact the supply of those articles were made by the TMH as a part of service rendered by the TMH during the treatment of the indoor patients and, therefore the transaction cannot be said to be ''sale'' within the meaning of Section 2 (t) of the Bihar Finance Act.
26. The transaction of supply of medicines, vaccines, surgical items, x-ray films and plates etc. to the indoor patients in course of treatment in TMH does not come within the purview of the definition of ''sale'' as envisaged u/s 2 (t) of the Bihar Finance Act for the following reasons:
(i) Supply of those articles are part and parcel of the treatment and they are essentially required for the treatment of the patients.
(ii) Supply of those articles are incidental to the medical service being rendered by the TMH to the patients.
(iii) Those articles are not being sold to the patients but the cost price of the same being adjusted against the head ''pharmacy'' and are not being separately charged item wise.
(iv) Charge under the head "pharmacy" is part of the composite charge realized by the TMH towards the treatment of those indoor patients.
27. On the facts noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, we find that the TMH is not doing business of sale of the aforesaid articles, i.e. medicines, vaccines, surgical items, x-ray films & plates etc. and, therefore, cannot be said that the Hospital is a ''dealer'' within the meaning of "Dealer" under the Bihar Finance Act.
28. The transaction aforesaid, cannot be said to be ''sale'' under the law as there is no element of sale at all in the said transaction. It is to be held that the transaction of supply of medicines, surgical items, x-ray films and plats etc. for the treatment of the indoor patients does not come under the purview of ''sale'' in terms of the Bihar Finance Act because the TMH is not selling those items to the indoor patients but in fact they are being consumed, utilized, administered to those indoor patients, which are essentially required for their treatment. Accordingly, it is to be held that supply of the aforesaid articles by the TMH are not liable to be taxed.
29. In view of the findings and discussions above, the order dated 18/03/2006 as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ application whereby the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur, passed an order for assessment of the sales tax against the petitioner u/s 17 (5) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 for the last four financial years and the demand of tax as contained in Annexure- 14 series to the writ application cannot be sustained.
30. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the order dated 18/03/2006 as contained in Annexure-13 and the demand notices dated 20th March 2006, contained in Annexure-14 series are hereby quashed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.
31. I agree.
