Appeal No 1359 of 1993
From the Judgment and Order dated 161192 of the Patna High Court in CWJC No 446 of 1992
KN Chaubey K Pandeya and Mohan Pandey for the Appellant
523 Gobinda Mukhoty NN Goswami SK Bhattacharya CVS Rao Ms KK Manglam L R Singh Vikas Singh Yunus Malik BB Singh Ms Vimal Sinha and Ms Kumud L Das for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT J
Leave granted
The appellant is a member of the Bar
He had field a petition in the nature of a public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Patna praying for a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of respondent No 6 Dr Shiva Jatan Thakur as a Member of the Bihar State Public Service Commission
The High Court dismissed the writ petition
Hence the present appeal
The attack against the appointment of respondent No 6 is based on two grounds a on the date of his appointment ie 4th March 1991 respond No 6 was the seventh non service member
The total strength of the Public Service Commission being eleven uncluding the Chairman the appointment of the seventh member from the  non service category was violative of the proviso to article 3161 of the Constitution which requires that as nearly as may be one half of the members shall be persons who have held office for at least ten years either under the Government of India or under a Government of the State
b respondent no6 was totally blind even from a date prior to his appointment and was unfit to be appointed by reason of the said physical infirmity
We are accordingly required to consider whether these two grounds were sufficient to disqualify respondent No 6 from being appointed as a member of the commission
In his counter affidavit respondent No 6 has stated among other or things that he happens to be the son of a peon retired form the Railway We are informed by Shri Mukhoty the learned counsel appearing for him 524 that he belongs to the backward community of barbers
He has been blind since the age of eight years
In spite of his blindness he was able to pursue his educational career successfully and he earned degrees and diplomas
He is a PhD in English of the Patna University
He has been a University college teacher in English and he was promoted to the post of Reader in English on the completion of bare eight years of service
He was the first teacher of the Patna University who was unanimously recommended for the award of D Litt
on account of the excellence of his thesis written for PhD As a scholar in English he has submitted papers to national and international conferences
He is a life member of the organisations who sponsor these conferences
The Government of Bihar vide its DO letter No 2740 dated 22nd October 1991 sent to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs had recommended him for the prestigious national award of Padmashree  for his services as a Member of the Public Service Commission
The President of India on 15th March 1992 conferred on him National Award which reads this national award is given to Dr Shiva Jatan Thakur in public recognition of his outstanding performance as the most efficient employee
He has also referred to the circumstances under which his present appointment came to be challenged nearly 9 12 months after it was made
While he was appointed on 4th March 1991 the writ petition was filed in the High Court on 14th January 1992
According to him he had made a representation to the President of India the Governor of Bihar and others against the serious misconduct gross malpractice and wilful violation of the constitutional mandate by the Chairman of the Commission
The present writ petition was filed in the High Court 18 days after a copy of the representation was received by the Chairman among others
It is his dispute with the Chairman who according to him is backed by the Chief Minister of the State which has led to the present writ petition
He has also stated that the Chief Minister in his press interview given to the local Urdu daily viz Qaumi Tanzeem and published on 27th March 1992 had made his intentions public to move this Court against his ap pointment
Those averments are not controverted
According to him further it was on account of his academic distinctions and with the full knowledge that he was totally blind from childhood that he was appointed as a Member of the Public Service Commission
He has also stated that his blindness never came in his way either in the pursuit of his studies or in his service as a teacher
His experience in the public Commission also showed that the said defect did not come in his way of 525 discharging his duties effectively
In this connection he points out that the only thing he cannot do is to assess the individual s external personality on the basis of the candidates external appearance which is not a material requirement for the candidates for many posts
He has further added that the Commission sits in Committees or interview boards and every Committee usually consists of four or five persons including members of the Commission and experts from the respective departments
The marks awarded to the candidates are agreed upon after due discussions and deliberations in the interview board
The advice of the experts is a determinative factor in such decisions
When the members of the interview board with non technical and non professional qualifications interview candidates for technical and professional posts they do so with the aid and advice of the experts from the concerned departments
Hence if he is required to depend upon the opinion of the other members of the interview board for the external appearance of the candidates that is not a dependence of a kind which vitiates the assessment of the interview board as a whole
In any case the dependence is not worse than the dependence of the members of the board on the opinion of the experts when they are not qualified to adjudge the candidates for posts requiring the relevant expertise
The State Government has lent a tragicomic touch to the controversy by filing its affidavit the relevant contents of which deserve reproduction here for reasons more than one
The pathos is made poignant by the fact that the affiant Shri RC Vaish Resident Commissioner of the State at New Delhi in his letter which is placed on record has stated that the draft affidavit was approved by Hon ble the Chief Minister of the State
He has also stated that he has been authorised by the Secretary of the concerned department to swear the affidavit
The relevant portion of the affidavit reads as follows That the respondent State upon reconsideration of the entire matter under controversy feels that the words of the Constitution have to be interpreted in letter and spirit and any departure from the express words of the Constitution wherever such departure seems to be permissible under the Constitution should be done only for sound and good reasons
In the instant case the departure with regard to appointment of members of the Bihar Public 526 Service Commission was made only because the proviso to Article 316 1 of the Constitution is not mandatory
Accordingly while appointment the respondent No 6 as the seventh non government member of the BPSC the mandate of proviso to Article 316 1 was not followed
it is felt that the fact that proviso to Article 3161 not being mandatory is by itself not a good ground for departing from the suggestion of the Constitution and accordingly the appointment of respondent No 6 as member of the State Public Service Commission cannot be justified
 At the time of appointment of respondent No 6 as a member of the Bihar Public Service Commission he was the seventh nongovernment member when  at that time there were only four government members in a total strength of eleven members in the BPSC That with ragard to the infirmity of the respondent No 6 it is submitted that at the time of appointment of respondent No 6the aspect about his blindness was not specifically considered the same was stated in the Bio data of the respondent No 6 in a very casual way and in such a manner that in had escaped the attention of the Constitutional authorities at the time of recommending the respondent No6 for appointment to the post of member the BPSC
In this regard it is submitted that the respondent No 6 in his Bio data while praising his achievements had only stated that he is the first blind person to have been awarded PhD  There was no mention whether such blindness was subsequent to birth or whether such blindness was congenial There was also no details in the Bio data stating whether such blindness was complete or the some was partial temporary curable or not curable
In thesefacts the aspect about the blindness of
the respondent No 6 was not specifically considered by any of the Constitutional Authorities who are involved in the appointment of a member to the State Public Service Commission
That in this regard it is further submitted that the nature of duty of a member of a Public Service Commis 527 sion is primarily to make selections for appointments the various Govt
jobs of the State and accordinly while making such recommendations the member of the State Public Service Commission has to interview the eligible candidates
While conducting such interview the member of the State Public Commission is to visually interview each candidate to determine his suitable
After the appointment of the respondent of the respondent No 6 it has come to the notice of the respondent No 6 it has come to the respondent No 6 is clearly hampering the effective discharge of official duties by the respondent No 6
Emphasis supplied To appreciate the first attack against the appointment it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of Article 3161 and 2 of the Constitution which relate to the appointment and the term of office of the members of the Public Service Commissions 316
Appointment and term of office of members
1 The Chairman and other members
of a Public Service Commission shall be appointed in the case of the Union Commission or a Joint Commission by the President and in the case of a State Commission by the Government of the State Provided that as nearly as may be one half of the members of every Public Service Commission shall be persons who at the dates of their respective appointments have held office for at least ten years either under the igovernnient of India or under the Government of a State and in computing the said period of ten years any period before the commencement of this Constitution during which a person has held office under the Crown in India or under the Government of an Indian State shall be included
1 A x x x x x 2 A member of a Public Service Commission shall hold 528 office for a term of six years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains in the case of the Union Commission the age of sixty five years and in the case of State Commission or a Joint Commission the age of sixty two years whichever is earlier Provided that a a member of a Public Service Commission may by writing under his hand addressed in he case of the Union Commission or a Joint Commission to the President and in the case of a State Commission to the Governor of the State resign his office b a member of a Public Service Commission may be removed from his office in the manner provided in clause 1 or clause 3 of Article 317
3 x x x x XI It is apparent from these provisions that the Chairman and other members of the State Public Service Commission are appointed by the Governor of the State
The appointments are obviously made on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State
The proviso to Clause 11 of the Article requires that as nearly as may be one half of the members of the Commission shall be persons who on the dates of their respective appointments have held office for at least ten years either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State
For brevity s sake we may refer to this category of members as service members
The expression as nearly as may be itself suggest that the proportion of 50 of the service members is not exact but approximate and is meant not to be mandatory but directory
The said proviso does not in terms say that in no case and at no point of time the said proportion should either go above or fall below 50
In the very nature of things a strict adherence to the said direction is not practicable at any particular point of time
In the first instance the superannauation age of the member of the Commission is 62 years and his total tenure as a member cannot exceed six years
He has to vacate his office either when his tenure comes to an end or when he attains the age of 62 years whichever is earlier
When the members are appointed they are bound to differ in age whether they belong to the service category 529 or the non service category
In the normal course they would retire at different points of time
If it is insisted as is done on behalf of the appellant that the said requirement must be followed strictly at all times it would be well nigh impossible to do so
Every time a member whether belonging to the service or the non service category retires there should be available a suitable person from the same category to be appointed in his place
It is not always possible to make an advance list of persons of either category who are suitable for such appointments
Hence the total strength of the Commission as well as the number from each of the categories are bound to vary from time to time
At any given point of time therefore it may not be possible to maintain the proportion between the two categories strictly in accordance with the direction given in the Constitution
It appears that it is for this reason that the words at least half  used in the proviso to Section 265 1 of the Government of India Act 1935 corresponding to the present proviso to Article 316 11 have been substituted by the words as nearly as may be one half 
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant however submitted that the expression as nearly as may be one half  has been used to convey that a fraction may be ignored if the total number of members cannot be exactly halved between service and non service categories
We are afraid that this argument is too simplistic
The fraction is and ran be taken care of without the aid of such expression and a document like the Constitution does not have to incorporate the normal rules of interpretation
It is clear that the framers of the Constitution realised that to make the provision rigid was both inadvisable and unnecessary
We have already demonstrated its impracticability
It can further hardly be suggested that the need to have 50 from the service category is of such paramount importance to the composition of the Commission that the breach of it at any particular point of time would defeat the very object of constituting the Commission
The purpose for which the said provision is made is obvious
It was realised by the framers of the Constitution that the democratic system can be maintain only if civil servants are appointed solely on the basis of their merit adjudged by open competition and only if they can carry of the administration according to law independently instead of under pressure of their political superiors
Hence they provided for Public Service Commissions as both the Union and the State level as autonomous bodies to enable then to carry on their functions independently fairly and impartially
Since the Commission s main task was to recruit administrative personnel it was 530 necessary to have on the Commission members with sufficient administrative experience
To induct persons of experience it was imperative to provide that a certain proportion of the members of the Commission should have had an actual experience of running the administration so that the Commission is better able to adjudge the fairness of firness of persons to be recruited in the administration
However the very fact that the Service Commission was not proposed to be constituted of the members from the service category exclusively also shows that the framers of the Constitution did not desire that the outlook of the service members alone should prevail while recruiting the personnel
The view of the persons from outside the administration was also considered to be equally imperative in selecting the personnel
A balance was therefore sought to be struck by providing the e in Detecting the proportion between the two categories of members
It would however be naive to suggest on that account that the framers of the Constitution presumed to ensure that on all occasions there shall be an exact balance of views
It is unrealistic to believe that individuals with different backgrounds always insist on the acceptance of the outlook dictated by their background alone and refuse to share the view point of others
It is certainly not expected of the members of such high ranking Constitutional body as the Public Service Commission
We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the Service Commissions mostly sit in Committees and are aided and assisted by the experts from the concerned faculties disciplines and departments
The Committees take their decision collectively after due deliberations and discussions
It is therefore the composition of these Committees and not so much the composition of the Commission at any particular point of time that matters
Hence we are unable to subscribe to the view that the proviso to Article 316 1 requiring that as nearly as may be one half of the members of the Public Service Commission shall be from service category leaves no option to the Appointing Authority under any circumstance whatever to allow reduction of representation from that category and a breach of the said requirement by reason of appointment of a member from non service category vitiates such appointment or the duties performed by such appointee as a member of the Public Service Commission
The learned counsel for the appellant went so far as to contend that the said requirement constituted a qualification of the member to be appointed every time a vacancy is to be filled
According to him depending 531 upon the shortfall in the representation of the respective category the member to be appointed has to be either form the service or non service category as the case may be and that is an essential qualification for his appointment
The argument was that is an essential as in the present case the representation of the service members of the Commission fell short of 50 then all persons to the appointed on the Commission till the said proposition was made up had to be from the service ctegory that being their necessary qualification
It is not possible to accept this contention for the simple reason that as pointed out earlier it may be possible to get a suitable person either from service or non service category over a period of time and for want of suitable candidates from the concerned category the vacancies on the Commission may remain unfilled during that period
The persons from the other category are available during that period
The reasonable interpretation of the said proviso therefore is to treat it not as a strict rule to be enforced but as a binding gudeline to be followed in practice in spirit as far as possible and without deliberately flouting it Hence it is not possible to hold that merely because at the time of appointment of respondent No 6 there were four service members and six non service members he was disqualified for being appointed as the 7th member from the non service category
The second attack which is based upon the blindness of respondent No6 is equally myopic
As has been pointed out earlier respondent no6 been blind from his childhood
In spite of his blindness he acquired high educational qualifications and in fact at the time of his appointment he was an Associate Professor in the Patna University
He is an acknowledged scholar of English Although the Government has now come forward to disown any knowledge about his complete blindness from the childhood with which we will deal instantly they must be presumed to have known the said infirmity and should be deemed to have formed the opinion that in spite of his blindness he was fit to be a member of thel Commission
We see no reason to hold otherwise in the circimstances pointed out by respondent No 6 in his affidavit to which we have already referred
Nothing concrete has also been brought on record to show that he has failed ot perform his duties as a member of the Commission efficiently because of his blindness
On the other hand as has been pointed out earlier the State Government itself had recommended him for Padmashree  for his efficient discharge of the work as a member of the Commission and that too over a short span of few months
We are also in agreement with the contentin advanced on his behalf that 532 except the external appearance of the candidates appearing before him he is able to ascertain the required merits or demerits of the Candidates as do the other members of the Commission
The Commission as it normally should operates through Committees and as regards the external appearance the other members of the Committees give him the required information on the basis of which he is able to assess the overall merit of the candidates
The external appearance of the candidates is also not of importance in all ap pointments
What is futher necessary to note is that for selecting the candidates for almost all disciplines and departments the experts from the concerned departments do sit in the Committees and the opinion of the experts ordinarily prevails in such appointments since the members of the Committees who are the members of the Commission do not have the expertise
in the relevant fields
This shows that all members of the Commission sitting on the interview Committees have also to be guided in their opinion by the experts
If respondent No 6 has to take guidance only in the matter of external appearance of the candidates all members of the Commission have to be guided by the experts with regard to the most vital equipment of the candidates viz the intellectual calibre and the proficiency of the candidates in the relevant subjects
There is therefore nothing wrong if only for external appearance for which only a small percentage of the total marks is reserved respondent No 6 has to depend on the advice opinion or guidance of the other members of the Committees and the Commission
The decision of the interview board is always a collective one and is taken after deliberation on the merits and demerits of the candidates which are evaluated on the basis of various factors
We are therefore unable to see as to how in the circumstances respondent No 6 is unfit to carry on his duties as a member of the Commission because of his blindness
The attack however was sought to be strengthened by relying on the provisions of sub clause c of Clause 3 of Article 317 of the Constitution which provides for removal of a member of the Public Service Commission on the ground that he is in the opinion of the President unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body
The argument was that the blindness was infirmity of body and if it is a ground for removal from office it is much more a disqualification for appointment and hence respondent No 6 should be prevented from continuing in his office
We are afraid that the first premise on which this limb of the argument is based misses the obvious fact viz that by infirmity of body 533 what is spoken of in the sub clause in question is an infirmity which disables the Member from discharging his functions as such member effectively
It is not every infirmity of body or every loss of use of any limb of the body
The defect or deficiency must be such as would disable the Member from carrying out his duties satisfactorily and consistent with the trust reposed in him
We have already pointed out that not only the blandness of respondent No 6 does not prevent him from discharging his duties expected of him but in fact the services rendered by him as such member have been eulogised and commended for a National Award by no other than the State Government itself and the Chairman of the Commission who had the first hand knowledge of his functioning
This is apart from the fact that the Governor who appointed him on the advice of the Council of Ministers is presumed to have done so after satisfying himself that the loss of eye sight was not an infirmity which would impede him in the discharge of his duties
The infirmity of body or mind which is referred to in the sub clause further must necessarily be such as has arisen after the appointment and not the one which existed at the time of the appointment unless of course the Government was unaware of the same at the time of the appointment
We may now turn to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government
A reading of the said affidavit leaves no doubt in our mind that it has been filed only to prejudice the case of respondent No 6 before us because for some reasons he has fallen foul some persons in power
As is evident from the portions of the affidavit reproduced above firstly a case is sought to be made out there that respondent No6 was appointed as the non Government member  of the Commission only because the proviso of Article 316 11 is not mandatory
That may be so
But the affidavit then proceeds to state almost in relenting terms that although the said proviso is not mandatory that by itself is not a good ground for departing from the suggestion of the Constitution and hence the appointment of respondent No 6 as the 7th non Government member was not justified
It is not clear as to when this wisdom dawned on the Government for the first time
The record further does not show as to who had suggested his name to the Governor and whether the decision was taken by the Council of Ministers as a whole or by the Chief Minister or any of his colleagues alone and what advice was received or obtained by them if at all while making the appointment
We are however happy to know that 534 the State Government upon reconsideration of the entire matter under controversy feels that the words of the Constitution have to be interpreted in letter and spirit and any departure from the express words of Constitu tion  should be done only for sound and good reasons
We only hope that the State Government keeps that solemn declaration in mind for all purpose and for all times to come and does not forget it the moment the ink in the present proceedings dries
But more breast beating of the Government is on the second issue viz the blindness of respondent no6 The affidavit states that at the time of the appointment the aspect about his blindness was not specifically considered as the same was stated in the Bio data of the respondent No 6 in a very casual way and in such a manner that it had escaped the attention of the Constitutional authorities at the time of recommending the respondent no6 for appointment   
not to be outdone by this ludicrous averment the affidavit proceeds to state that respondent No 6 in his bio data while praising his achievements had only stated that he is the first blind person to have been awarded PhD
There was no mention whether such blindness was subsequent to birth or whether such blindness was congenital 
There was sic also no details in the Bio data stating whether such blindness was complete or the same was partial temporary curable or not curable
It is then the case of the State Government that in the view of these facts the aspect above the blindness of the respondent No 6 was not specifically considered by any of the Constituitonal authorities who are involved in the appointment of a member to state Public Service Commission
Since the affiant himself has brought into picture the Constitutional Authorities who are involved in the appointment the aspect of the blindness of respondent no6 was not specifically of a member to the State Public Service Commission and has Stated that considered by them we cannot help observing that the affiant by making such statement as made the Constitution authorities look ridiculous and their functioning a mockery in the eyes of the public
We are anguished more on account of the that state Government should have considered it compulsive to allow such blatantly rabid statement s to be made on the oath with impunity
No responsible public authority could have aware the that respondent No6 was totally blindly from his childhood when that made the client that none of the constitutional functionaries concerned was fact must have been widely known in the State and in all probability the extra ordinary abilities exhibited by him despite his blindness must have 535 been the main reason for his appointment as a member of the Public Service Commission
Any statement seems to be good enough whether true or untrue so long as it is considered serviceable for thee immediate purpose in hand
We refrain from making more comments which certainly such affidavits deserve in ample measure and let the affidavit speak for itself
The affidavit further states that while conducting the interviews members of the Commission have to visually interview each of the candidates to determine his suitability and after the appointment of respondent No 6 it has come to the notice of the respondent State that the blindness of the respondent No 6 is clearly hampering the effective discharge of official duties by him
It is necessary to remember in this  connection that this affidavit has been filled on 23rd January 1993
Respondent No6 had filed his affidavit on 7th October 1992In that affidavit respondent No 6 has among other things referred tothe certificate given by respondent No5 Dr Ram Ashray Yadav Chairma of the Public Service Commission on 11th September 1991 where he has stated that respondent No 6 has been performing his duties with exceptional excel lence without letting his blindness hinder his work
I strongly recommend that Dr Thakur be awarded National Award in recognition of his excellence despite his blindness He has also referred in his affidavit to the letter of 22nd October 1991 of the State Government to the Union Home Ministry recommending him forthe award of Padmashree for his services as a Member of the Public Service Commission
Neither the certificate nor the letter has been controverted by the Chairman and
the Government
In the face of the certificate and the Said recommendatory letter it is difficult to understand the basis on which it is now stated in the affidavit that the blindness of respondent No6 is hampering his work
There is therefore no doubt in our mind that the affidavit has been filed for the only purpose of seeking somehow the removal of respondent no6 Respondent No 6 in his affidavit has alleged that he has since fallen but the respondent No 5 the Chairman of the Commission and the Chairman is bent upon ousting him from the Commission
To shows the animosity of the Chairman towards him he has given a list of events alongwith his affidavit
These events have not been in controverted
The High Court has referred to some of these events in paragraph 6 of its judgment
Since they have a bearing On the Governments comments on his performance we may reproduce the events catalogued by the High Court
536 1
His PA has been replaced 2
His chamber which contains two almirahs containing documents has been locked up 3
The service of the reader who is to read to him documents and journals and other papers is not being provided to him and his services have been terminated 4
The use of staff car by him has been stopped 5
His orderly has been transferred 6
The Chairman of the Commission has issued instructions not to receive any document from him or to obey his orders 7
His telephone bill for the month of Oct 1991 for Rs 598 only has not been paid though a sum of Rs 18154 on account of telephone bill of the Chairman s residence has been paid
The newspaper allowance payable to him is not being paid 9
He has not been allowed to attend the meetings of the Commission held on 11th December
20th December and 31st December 1991 and he is not aware when any other meeting has been held thereafter or not in as much as he has not been provided with any notice in respect of the same 10
He has been physically prevented from going to inside sic the campus of the Commission since 28th of November 1991
 In the list of events accompanying his counter affidavit he has also referred to other incidents such as the attempted physical assault on him by the Chairman during a meeting of the Commission the threats of physical liquidation administered from the telephonic line of the Chairman the complaints made by him to the police to the Chief Minister and to the 537 Governor etc
We do not desire to burden this judgement with the said details
it is also not necessary to make any comment upon the aforesaid events since they speak for themselves
They only reinforce the conclusion that the belated claim of the State Government that the appointment of respondent No6 is invalid and that his blindness hampers the discharge of his duties has its obvious roots in the strained relations between him on the one hand and the Chairman and the State Government on the other
While therefore dismissing appeal in the special facts of the case we also direct both the appellant and the respondent State of pay the costs of this appeal to respondent No6 in the amounts of Rs 5000 and Rs 10000 respectively
PSS Anneal dismissed


Summary:
The State of Kerala issued Notification RSO 415 of 1971 under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act providing for an exemption in respect of tax in regard to the turn over of the sales of newsprint for a period of two years from the date of starting production of the newsprint plant
The appellant entered into an agreement with the State Government in 1974 giving the said exemption
A major portion of the newsprint manufactured at the factory located within the State was sold in the course of inter state trade and commerce and during the assessment years relevant to the period of the two years from the date of the commencement of the production the appellant claimed exemption not only from the State Sales Tax by virtue of the 1971 Notification and the 1974 agreement but also from the Central Sales Tax under and by virtue of sub section 2A of Section 8 of the 
The Sales Tax Officer accepted the claim under the State Sales Tax Act but rejected the claim under the 
Appeals preferred by the appellant to the Appellant Assistant Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellant Tribunal were dismissed and when the appellant approached the High Court by way of revision under Section 41 of the State Sales Tax Act the High Court also dismissed the revisions petitions
656 In the appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant relying on Pine Chemicals Limited vs Assessing Authority 199 2 SCC 683 that the exemption granted to It by the 1971 State Government notification Issued under the Kerala Sales Tax Act Is a general exemption within the meaning of Section 82A and therefore the inter state sales effected by it are equally exempt from Central Sales Tax by virtue of Section 82A
The State contested the appeals by contending that the exemption granted to the appellant under the State Sales Tax is not a general exemption but a conditional one and that the exemption operates only in certain specified circumstances and that the provision contained in Section 82A does not go to exempt the inter state sales of the appellant
On the question whether the exemption granted under the 1971 State notification exempting the produce of the appellant factory manufacturing newsprint from the State Sales Tax for a period of two years from the date of commencement of production in the factory can be called An exemption from tax generally 
Allowing the appeals this Court HELD1
The inter state sales effected by the appellant are those failing under Section 3a of the Central Sales Tax Act
The liability to pay Central Sales Tax on inter state sales arises by virtue of sub section 1 of Section 6
Sub section 2A of section 8 seeks to provide exemption to a dealer with respect to his turnover
The explanation appended to the sub section is couched in negative terms and seeks to define the words exempt from tax generally and indicates when a sale or purchase of any goods shall not be deemed to be exempt from tax generally under the State Sales Tax Law
659 B 660 B C 2An inter state sale or purchase of a commodity shall not be deemed as exempt from State Tax generally if the exemption is given only 1 in specified circumstances or under specified conditions or 2 the tax is leviable on the sale or purchase of such goods at specified stages or 3 otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods
These conditions or limitations are with reference to the transaction of sale or purchase
663 F G 657 3The existence or otherwise of the aforesaid three limitations on claiming exemption the explanation under Section S2 A of the will have to be tested with reference to the transaction of sale or purchase as the case may be of the dealer who claims the exemption in respect of his intrastate sale or purchase of the same goods
663 H 664 A 4The 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 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 of Section 82 A
664 E 5The conditions relating to identity of the goods and the dealer are always there in every exemption and that cannot be put as a condition of sale
664 G Pine Chemicals Limited vs Assessing Authority   explained and followed
660 H Indian Aluminum Cables vs State of Haryana 38 STC 108 Industrial Cables Corporation vs Commercial Tax Officer 35 STC 1 distinguished
662 A