State Taxation Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
V.C. Ramalingam And Son And Anr. vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 6 May, 1998
Equivalent citations: [2000]118STC383(TRIBUNAL)
ORDER
J. Kanakaraj, J. (Chairman)
1. O.P. No. 1706 of 1996 is to quash the proceedings of the third respondent in TNGST No. 063 535/94-95 dated August 16, 1996, which is an order of assessment passed against the first petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1994-95. The dispute relates to the classification of the sale of the goods "Vicco Vajradanti" and "Vicco Turmeric". While the petitioner sought classification under serial No, 20, Part "C" as medicinal preparation, the department treats the goods under serial No. 7, Part "E" and serial No. 1, Part "F" as tooth-paste and as a facial cream.
2. O.P. No. 1707 of 1996 is for a declaration that a portion of the entry in Serial No. 1 of Part "F" and a portion of the entry in Serial No. 20(A) of Part "C" of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act are ultra vires of articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
3. The first petitioner are carrying on business in the said products Vicco Vajradanti and Vicco Turmeric as stock-holders and dealers and market the products. The second petitioner is the manufacturer of the said products. After the introduction of chapter IV-A in the State of Maharashtra the second petitioner applied and obtained a licence to manufacture the above products as ayurvedic drugs. According to the petitioner Vicco Vajradanti comprises of 18 ayurvedic ingredients and it is used for the treatment of tooth disorder like pyorrhoea, swelling gums, bleeding gums, etc. Similarly, Vicco Turmeric is also manufactured from ayurvedic ingredients. It is used for the treatment of diseases relating to the skin eczema, itches, pimples, etc. Even under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the department sought to classify the items as cosmetic and tooth pastes, but the Bombay High Court held in a judgment dated April 27, 1988 that they are only ayurvedic medicines. The Special Leave Petition filed by the department to the apex Court was dismissed on September 6, 1990. But the attempt of the petitioners to get classification under Indian Standard Institute as a tooth paste or a cosmetics was negatived by the institute on the ground that they were only medicines. While so, for the months of August and September, 1994 the petitioners received communications from the third respondent on October 24, 1994 pointing out that the goods are chargeable at the rate of 12 per cent and 16 per cent respectively and not at the rate of 5 per cent as claimed by the petitioner. Further one Rameshkumar and Company also dealing with very same product approached the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for a clarification and in a detailed order it was ruled that the said products are chargeable under item 7 of Part "E" taxable at 12 per cent and item 1 of Part 'F' chargeable at 16 per cent from the date March 12, 1993 when the entries were suitably amended and that they cannot be classified as medicines under item 20 of part "C". The sum and substance of the petitioner's claim is that very many many decisions have accepted the case of the petitioners that the products are only medicines and therefore, the stand of the department is totally unacceptable. But the petitioners are aware of the amendment to the said entries and how they cause mischief and that is precisely the reason why the petitioners are seeking a declaration that the offending portions are ultra vires the Constitution of India.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it is pointed out that by the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (32 of 1994), the entries were changed with effect from March 12, 1993 and tooth paste and tooth-powder were taken out of serial No. 7 of Part 'E' of the First Schedule and they were included in serial No. 1 of Part 'F' taxable at 12 per cent at the first and second point of sale as per the charging Section 3(2-B) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Similarly, by the same amendment vanishing cream, etc. were made chargeable under item No. 1 of part "F" taxable at 16 per cent at the first and second point of sale under the said charging Section 3(2-B) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The counter-affidavit proceeds to narrate the changes undergone by the said entries to emphasise the point that under the current entries neither Vicco Vajradanthi nor Vicco Turmeric can escape the classification as made by the Special Commissioner in his clarification dated April 6, 1994 and as per the impugned order of assessment. It is also pointed out that the decisions of the Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in T.A. Nos. 355 and 361 of 1992 dated June 15, 1992 cannot help the petitioners because the entries have been changed from March 12, 1993. It is also argued that the decisions of various other High Courts, cannot be compared and applied in the present case because the entries are different. So far as the question of the vires of the relevant entries, the counter-affidavit points out that it is the prerogative of the Legislature to pick and choose any article for the application of any rate of tax having regard to the economic conditions of the State. Equally the fact that the petitioners have not collected tax at the higher rate is not a ground to give the benefit of a lower rate to the petitioners. Argued the Revenue, that words of everyday use must be understood and given a meaning which is acceptable in common parlance. In other words, the words must be understood in the popular sense.
5. Mr. C. Natarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken us through the relevant entries and the decisions of various authorities relating to the very same products for buttressing the case of the petitioners and for escaping from the offending words in the amended entries. The ratio of a decision has to be culled out from the nature of the entries at the relevant time. It cannot be disputed that the entries as they now read have ever come up for interpretation and therefore it is really not necessary to advert to all the decisions cited before us. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the original petitions it is admitted that the said goods are purchased from General Stores and not necessarily from druggists and chemists. Further, there is a tacit admission that the goods are incidentally used by people as tooth paste and facial cream. The very fact that the petitioners seek to invalidate certain portions of the entries as they now stand, shows that if those words remain in the statute book, the petitioners cannot escape the levy as per the impugned order of assessment. With the above background, we will now consider the arguments of the petitioners in detail.
6. We may at the outset make it clear that no serious arguments were advanced before us on the question whether certain portions of the entries are ultra vires of the Constitution of India. The argument is that if products which are licensed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, are treated as cosmetics for the purpose of the Tamil Nadu enactment, it would amount to arbitrariness and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A drug or medicine as understood in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has to be treated like all other drugs and medicines and cannot be subjected to different rate of duty. We are unable to accept this argument because in a taxing statute, it is open to the Legislature to levy tax at different rates on different goods. It cannot be argued that all medicines and drugs should be subjected to the same rate of duty. It is certainly open to the Legislature to select a particular item having regard to the trade and business in the State for the purpose of applying a particular rate of tax. Further, the products in question are more comparable to tooth paste and facial cream rather than to a medicine and this aspect has also to be taken into account before making a allegation of discrimination. We are satisfied that there is absolutely no discrimination practiced by the Legislature in making the impugned entries. Further, the entries are of a general nature and all categories of goods which fall under the entry become chargeable to tax at the particular rate. It is not as if Vicco Vajradanti and Vicco Turmeric alone have been chosen for the imposition of the particular levy. The offending words, viz., "excluding products capable of being used as creams, hair oils, tooth pastes, tooth powder, cosmetics, toilet articles, soaps and shampoos" do apply to every such article which fall within the above exclusions. Therefore, it is idle to contend that those words are liable to be struck down as arbitrary or unreasonable. Similarly, the words found in the explanation to the first entry in Part F of the First Schedule cannot also be held to be void or ultra vires the Constitution of India, because the goods which come under the category of Section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, cannot be treated as one class of goods for the purpose of taxing statute. Among such goods it is open to the Legislature to pick such of those goods which are liable to different rates of duty, being comparable to other such goods available in the market.
7. In this connection, Mr. C. Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioners has cited a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Arya Vaidya Pharmacy v. State of Tamil Nadu [1989] 73 STC 346. In that case all medicinal preparations were shown under item 95 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and subjected to a tax of 7 per cent (later increased to 8 per cent). While so, arishtams and asavas which were also ayurvedic medicinal preparations were separately classified under item 135 attracting a rate of sales tax at 30 per cent. Reversing the judgment of the High Court, the apex Court held that arishtams and asavas being ayurvedic medicinal preparation cannot be treated differently from the general class of ayurvedic medicines covered by item 95. While ruling as above the apex Court observed as follows :
"It is open to the Legislature, or the State Government if it is authorised in that behalf by the Legislature, to select different rates of tax for different commodities. But where the commodities belong to the same class or category, there must be a rational basis for discrimination between one commodity and another for the purpose of imposing tax. It is commonly known that considerations of economic policy constitute a basis for levying different rates of sales tax. For instance, the object may be to encourage a certain trade or industry in the context of the State policy for economic growth, and a lower rate would be considered justified in the case of such a commodity. There may be several considerations bearing directly on the choice of the rate of sales tax, and so long as there is good reason for making the distinction from other commodities no complaint can be made. What the actual rate should be is not a matter for the courts to determine generally, but where a distinction is made between commodities falling in the same category a question arises at once before the court whether there is justification for the discrimination".
The above observations clearly supports the stand of the respondent because the impugned portions do not make any distinction between the same class of medicines, but only takes out a class which is of general nature. We have therefore no hesitation in rejecting the prayer for declaration that the said portions of the entries are liable to be struck down as unconstitutional. O.P. No. 1707 of 1996 is therefore liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
8. If we now take up the correctness of the impugned proceedings of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer dated August 16, 1996 our task is much simpler because of the simple and clear terms in which the entries are worded. We will first take up entry 20, Part 'C' of the First Schedule. It is under this entry that the petitioner wants classification and have the benefit of the rate of tax as 5 per cent. This entry is as follows :
Sl. No Description of the goods Point of levy Rate of tax 20 (A) Medicines conforming to the following description : Any medicinal formulation or preparation ready for use internally or externally for treatment or mitigation or prevention of diseases or disorders in human being or animals (excluding products capable of being used as creams, hair oils, tooth pastes, tooth-powders, cosmetics, toilet articles, soaps and shampoos), but including At the point of first sale in the State 5%
(i) Allopathic medicine
(ii) Other medicines and drugs including ayurvedic, homeopathic, siddha and unani preparations.
(iii) Medicinal mixtures or compounds, the components of which have not already suffered tax.
(iv) Surgical dressing which expression shall include adhesive plasters, adhesive plaster dressing, gypsona plaster of paris and bandages, velroc pop bandages, elastro crape bandages, gauze, wadding gauze, lint and cotton Wool poultices and similar articles impregnated or coated with pharmaceutical substances put up in forms or packings for surgical purposes which have been sterilised and conform to the accepted standards of the medical profession.
(v) Pharmaceutical and surgical products of plastic and rubber including gloves, aprons and caps.
(B) Instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences, including scientigraphic apparatus, other electromedical apparatus and sight testing instruments including opthalmoscope, Otoscope, Laryngoscope, Retinoscope, Binocular loupe, parts and accessories thereof (other than those specified elsewhere in this Schedule).
(C)
(i) Heart pacemaker (pulse generator)
(ii) Intra-ocular lenses.
An attempt was made to interpret the entry with particular reference to the placing of the word "excluding" as against the word "including". The attempt is only to avoid the exclusion part to the items which are enumerated after the word "including". We do not accept the above interpretation because it is against the normal and plain reading of the entry. There is no grammatical gimmicks involved in the entry. The entry simply relates to medicinal formulation or preparations, but, excludes products capable of being used as creams, hair oils, tooth paste, etc. Thereafter, the word including seeks to rope in allopathic medicine as well as ayurvedic and siddha medicines. The products manufactured by the second petitioner clearly come within the excluded products, There is therefore, no escape from the conclusion that the products in question cannot come within the entry 20, Part "C" of the First Schedule.
9. The next entry which we have to refer to is entry 7, Part 'E' of the First Schedule which is as follows :
"Sl. No. Description of the goods Point of levy Rate of tax.7
Tooth pastes, tooth powders and mouth washes and other dentifrices whether or not medicated or as defined in section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Central Act XXIII of 1940) as manufactured under a licence issued under that Act, tooth brushes, tongue cleaners.
At the point of first sale in the State.
12%"
There is no vagueness or doubt about this entry. The argument before us proceeds as follows :
According to the petitioner the product Vicco Vajradanti is not medicated, but it is medicine itself. In our opinion that will not make a difference because we have already held that even a medicine which is capable of being used as creams, hair oils, tooth-paste, tooth-powders, etc., is not chargeable under entry 20. Part "C" of the First Schedule. Therefore, entry 7 of Part "E" only makes it abundantly clear that all tooth pastes, tooth powders, etc., whether injected with medicinal quality or not become chargeable under the said entry at the rate of 12 per cent.
10. The next entry is entry 1, Part 'F' of the First Schedule which is as follows :
Sl. No Description of the goods Point of levy Rate of tax.1
(i) Scents and perfumes in any form excluding doop and agarbathis but including aragaja, jawadu and punugu ;
At the point of first sale in the State, 16%
(ii) Hair oils, hair creams, hair dyes, hair dark-eners, hair tonics, brilhantines, pomades and vaselines ;
(iii) Lipsticks, lipsalve, nail polishers, nail varnishes, nail brushes, beauty boxes, face powders, toilet powders, baby powders, talcum powders, powder compacts, powder pads and puffs, toilet sets made of all materials (with or without contents) toilet sponges, scent spray, depilatories, blemish removers, eye liners all sorts, eye shadow, eye brow pencils, eye-lash brushes, eaudecologne, solid colognes, lavender water, snows, face creams, all purpose creams, cold creams, cleaning creams, make-up creams, beauty creams, beauty milk, cleaning milk, hair foods, skin tonics, complexion rouge, nail cutters, sanitary towels and napkins, astringent lotions, pre-shave and after-shave lotions and creams, moisturisers of all sorts and personal (body deodarants) Explanation.--Any of the items listed above even if medicated or as defined in Section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Central Act XXIII of 1940) or manufactured on the licence issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Central Act XXIII of 1940) will fall under this entry.
So far as this entry is concerned the point pressed, is about explanation. We have already held that the explanation is valid and legal and intra vires of the Constitution of India. Therefore, even if Vicco Turmeric is licensed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act it cannot escape the levy under the entry 1, Part F at the rate of 16 per cent.
11. What remains is the reference to a number of decisions by both the assessee and the Revenue. We have already stated that many of the judgments may not have any application to the facts of the present case after the amendment of the entries with effect from April 1, 1994 by Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (32 of 1994). Even so for the sake of completion we will briefly refer to the judgments. The first judgment is by the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 613 of 1982 dated April 27, 1988. No doubt several issues were framed in the suit from which the first appeal arose. But the conclusion that we are concerned is interesting and to a large extent against the argument of the petitioners. That conclusion is as follows :
"There is overwhelming evidence, therefore, on the record which is almost one sided to establish that two products under consideration must be regarded as ayurvedic medicines although they may also be used as tooth paste and are used as cosmetic cream".
The above finding fits in squarely with the excluded part in item 20, Part "C" of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
12. Reference is then made to a letter of the second petitioner addressed to the Indian Standard Institute. The letter is also pregnant with meaning and information for the purpose of classifying the products under the particular entries in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The letter is as follows :
"We are manufacturing Vicco Vajradanti tooth paste and turmeric vanishing cream under Ayurvedic Drug Licence A/237, issued by the Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State, Bombay.
We shall thank you to please let us know whether you would treat Vicco Vajradanti tooth paste as product falling under IS : 6356-1978 and Vicco Turmeric Vanishing Cream as product falling under IS : 6608-1978 and issue us licences to use 'S1' marks for the said two products".
We are emphasising the words even as described by the second petitioner, viz., Vicco Vajradanti tooth paste and Vicco Turmeric Vanishing Cream. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioners now to contend that vicco vajradanti is not a tooth paste and Vicco Turmeric is not a vanishing cream. The fact that I.S.I. refused I.S.I. marks on the ground that the products were manufactured under a ayurvedic drug licence does not help the petitioner.
13. The petitioners referred to series of orders by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State in respect of the very product. The entry in the Maharashtra State as on the relevant date is totally different. In fact in the order dated May 4, 1993, the significance of the amendment to the entries is brought out by the following words :
"In view of the preponderance of the evidence produced and the discussion in the foregoing the product will have to be classified as an ayurvedic medicine with reference to the entry as it stood before July 1, 1981. The question for classification is for a limited period that is till the amended Act came into force with effect from July 1, 1981. The relevant entry has been modified with effect from July 1, 1981 and cosmetics preparations whether medicated or otherwise get included in one category".
Again in the order dated March 29, 1984 the Commissioner observed as follows :
"Further, the Legislature has now made its intention very clear by expressly stating in entry 24 that such preparations which are medicines would stand excluded from the scope of entry 24. This change would come into effect from April 1, 1984. All things considered I am inclined to hold that impugned products is covered by the scope of entry 24 in Part I of Schedule C appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959".
To the same effect is the decision of the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh and the said decision is based on the particular entry in the Madhya Pradesh Act. The decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras in T.A. Nos. 355 of 1992 and 361 of 1992 dated June 15, 1992, is also to the same effect and this decision was rendered prior to the amendment introduced by Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 1994. There is also the decision of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rendered on June 28, 1993. The Karnataka High Court rendered a decision for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, on 13th December, 1995, Reported as United Trading Agency v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1997] 104 STC 182 (Kar). The entries they were concerned were as follows :
"1. Serial No. 5 of Part M of the Second Schedule reads as medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations (other than those specified elsewhere).
2. Serial No. 10 of Part T of the Second Schedule reads as 'toilet articles (whether medicated or not) except toilet soaps and such other toilet articles as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the official gazette'."
We have only to repeat that those decisions are with reference to the entries in those enactments.
14. Much reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in B. P. L. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara [1997] 104 STC 164. That case arose out of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The question was whether the product "Selenium Sulfide Lotion U.S.P." will fall under sub-heading 3305.90 or 3003.19, In our opinion a reference to those sub-headings clearly shows that they cannot advance the case of the petitioners herein. The heading 33.03 was as follows :
"2. Heading Nos; 33.03 to 33.08 apply, inter alia, to products, whether or not mixed (other than aqueous distillates and aqueous solutions of essential oils), suitable for use as goods of these headings and put up in packings with labels, literature or other indications that are for use as cosmetics or toilet preparations............"
The heading 33.05 is as follows :
"Preparations for use on the hair, including brilliantines, perfumed hair oils, hair lotions, pomades and creams, hair, dyes (in whatever form), shampoos, whether or not containing soap or organic surface-active agents".
No doubt that the Supreme Court stated that the manner in which the product is marked was not of much significance. What was material was the true nature of the product and that can be ascertained having regard to the preparations, label, literature, character, common and commercial parlance understanding.
15. Yet another decision which was relied on is the judgment of the Kerala High Court in T.R.C, No. 130 of 1994 Reported as Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) v. V.V. Kammath & Sons [1998] 111 STC 44 (Ker). There again the entries were quite different.
Entry 75 to Schedule I read as follows :
"Sl. No. Description of the goods Point of levy Rate of tax 75 Other medicines and drugs including ayurvedic, homeopathic, sidha and unani preparations.
At the point of first sale in the State by a dealer who is liable to tax under section 5.
6%"
16. The revenue pleaded that entries 79 and 80 are alone applied for the tooth paste and turmeric cream. There again the entries being different the petitioners cannot get any benefit out of the said decision. On the other hand, Mr. R. Mahadevan, the learned Government Advocate, for the revenue argues that ayurvedic medicines can be administered only after examining the individual. According to him, it is only on the basis of a particular individual's constitution that ayurvedic medicine is prescribed. We do not think that it is necessary to go into the nice question of administration of Ayurvedic medicine and the need to examine the individual before prescribing the medicine. This is because we are concerned with the interpretation of the entries and their application to particular product. The learned Government Advocate also relies upon the several decisions in support of the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. The first decision of some importance is in Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, reported in [1997] 106 STC 180 (SC). In that case, the apex Court approved an earlier decision reported in Rollatainers Ltd. v. Union of India [1994] 95 STC 556. In that decision it was observed as follows :
"The Tribunal by its order dated 13th June, 1986, held that the printing on the aluminium label being incidental to its use as a label or a wrapper arid that being inherently not a piece of reading matter, will not fall under the abovesaid exemption notification".
No doubt the apex Court distinguished that case while deciding Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. case [1997] 106 STC 180.
17. The West Bengal Taxation Tribunal had an occasion to test the correctness of the levy of "Nycil" powder under the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1972. Entry 41(e) authorised a levy on "preparation" whether medicated or not for the care of skin". Observed the Tribunal in Glaxo India Limited v. State of West Bengal [1997] 107 STC 106 :
"The question before us is not whether Nycil medicated powder for the care of skin is a toilet or a cosmetics or a drug. The only question before us is whether Nycil medicated powder for the care of skin can be treated as a specified goods under Sl. No. 41(e) of the Schedule to the Act of 1972. We have already referred above that it is both parties' case that Nycil is a medicated preparation of powder for the care of skin and this being the position, the respondents have rightly treated the same as taxable under the Act of 1972 under Sl. No. 41(e) of the Schedule to the said Act".
18. Again there is another decision relating to "Boroline Cream" by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal. The following observations in that case are relevant. (Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal v. West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal [1993] 89 STC 355).
"30. I have already held that mere issuance of a drug licence was not decisive. Mr. Roy, appearing for the applicants, referred to a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Lucky Bakery v, Commercial Tax Officer, case No. RN-147(T) of 1990 reported in [1992] 85 STC 159, in which it was held by this Tribunal that issuance of a licence by a different authority was not conclusive in a taxation matter, where the competent quasi-judicial authority arrived at his own decision under the provisions of the particular taxing statute, of course taking into account a licence issued by another competent authority in the relevant statute. Mr. Roy contended that neither the drug licence nor the views of the Central excise authorities in respect of Boroline were conclusive so as to pre-empt a proper exercise of power by the assessing authority under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1964. We cannot but agree with these submissions".
The last decision which requires our notice is State of Goa v. Leukoplast (India) Ltd. [1997] 105 STC 318 (SC). In that case the apex Court was considering certain adhesive plasters and crepe bandage produced under licence from the Drugs Controller. Whether those items were medicines or not have to be decided according to the apex Court, on how they understood and treated in the market, In this connection, the order of the Commissioner of Sales Tax dated April 6, 1994 gets the nod of the Special Tribunal, what is more, the apex Court observes as follows :
"In our view, whether the products manufactured by the assessee can be treated as "drugs or medicines" cannot be answered straightaway. The medicinal content of the products, if any, has to be ascertained. Its curative function has to be found out. Can the product be called a medicament at all ? Is it used to cure or alleviate or to prevent disease or to restore health or to preserve health ? Are these products treated as drugs or medicines in common parlance ? These are basically questions of fact. There was no reason for the assessee-company to by-pass the statutory remedy and come to the court with a writ petition. These questions basically of fact should be agitated before the statutory appellate authority".
19. In respect of the above decision of the Supreme Court, we are constrained to render a finding in these two original petitions because the original petitions were filed as early as in the year 1996 and have been pending for nearly two years. It is the petitioners who have taken the risk of adjudication by the Special Tribunal.
20. For all the above reasons, we have no hesitation in upholding the impugned order of assessment dated August 16, 1996 and rejecting O.P. No. 1706 of 1996. Consequently, both the original petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.
And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned.
Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 6th day of May, 1998.