Judgment:
K. Bhaskaran, C.J.
1. Various questions of law pertaining to the inclusion of excise duty, paid or payable by the manufacturer, in the turnover for the purpose of sales tax have been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. We have heard the Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent. We have in our judgment dated 28th February, 1986 in W.P. Nos. 10181 of 1983 etc., batch (Raj Sheel v. State of Andhra pradesh (Since reported at , after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court, in particular to McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer : [1985]154ITR148(SC) and Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [1979] 43 STC 13, in the penultimate para stated as follows :
'Referring to various earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in particular the one rendered in Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan : [1979]1SCR276 , the learned Judges observed that the excise duty would form part of the turnover and was exigible to tax. It is, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, when rule 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Brewery Rules, 1970, was not amended as in the case of A.P. Distillery Rules, fastening the liability on the licensee of the brewery to pay the excise duty, then, on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer : [1977]1SCR914 it should be held that the excise duty paid by a purchaser directly to the excise authority at the time of removal of the goods from the brewery would not form part of the turnover of the manufacturer. We are unable to accept this contention in view of the two later decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it had been categorically laid down that the primary responsibility to pay excise duty was on the manufacturer and though it was paid directly to the Government by a purchaser, still it formed part of the turnover of the manufacturer.'
2. We do not, therefore, find any reason to entertain this writ petition to the file particularly in view of the fact that it is only directed against the show cause notice issued by the first respondent.
3. The counsel for the petitioner made a request that all further proceedings before the first respondent pursuant to the show cause notice may be stayed. We do not find any justification for staying the further proceedings before the first respondent.
4. In that view, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150.
5. Writ petition dismissed.