S. H. A. RAZA, J. It is an admitted case of the parties that wheat is a notified commodity for the purpose of levying tax under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner who runs the Roller Flour Mills, which carries on the business of manufacturing atta, suji, maida and bran, purchased wheat from the Regional Food Controller, which was earlier purchased from farmers after it was rejected by the Food Corporation of India, at the rate of Rs. 151 per quintal, has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Regional Food Controller, Moradabad Division, Moradabad (respondent No. 2) and the Commissioner, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (respondent No. 3) to issue forms III-C (2) to the petitioner in respect of the rejected wheat sold by them as registered dealers to the petitioner during the assessment year 1983-84. A writ in the nature of mandamus, who also prayed for restraining the Sales Tax Officer, Sector 3, Moradabad, respondent No. 4, from taking any assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1983-84 till the requisite forms III-C (2) are issued to the petitioner by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in respect of the rejected wheat purchased by the petitioner during the assessment year 1983-84. 2. 2 and 3 in respect of the rejected wheat purchased by the petitioner during the assessment year 1983-84. 2. Levy of purchase or sales tx on certain goods have been mentioned in section 3-D of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, which reads as under : " 3-D. Levy of purchase or sales tax on certain goods.- (1) Except as provided in sub-section (2), there shall be levied and paid, for each assessment year or part thereof, a tax on the turnover, to be determined in the prescribed manner, - (a) of first purchases of opium, at such rate not exceeding twenty-six per cent; (b) of first purchases of such other goods, at such rate not exceeding - (i) the maximum rate for the time being specified in section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956), in respect of goods declared by section 14 of the Act to be special importance in inter-State trade or commerce, and (ii) fifteen per cent in respect of other goods, and with effect from such date, as the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, specify in relation to purchases made within Uttar Pradesh by a dealer (whether on his own account or on account of any one else), or through a dealer acting as a purchasing agent : . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Where in respect of any goods notified under sub-section (1), the purchaser whether on his own account or on account of any one else, is a person other than a registered dealer, there shall be levied and paid, for each assessment year or part thereof, a tax on the turnover, to be determined in the prescribed manner, of sale of such goods by the dealer who sells the goods or through whom the goods are sold to such purchaser, and the rate of tax shall be the same as notified under sub-section (1 ). (3) Where tax is payable, and has been so paid, under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as the case may be, by a commission agent, or any turnover of sales or of purchases on behalf of his principal, the principal shall not be liable to pay the tax in respect of the same turnover : Provided that - (1) The provisions of section 18 shall mutatis mutandis apply : (2) Nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a dealer in respect of purchases or sales of goods by a dealer in the circumstances mentioned in sub-section (3) of section 3. (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . (4) On the issue of a notification under this section, no tax shall be levied under any other section in respect of the goods so notified. (5) The provisions of sub-section (4) of section 3 and of section 18 shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to the tax payable under this section. (6) Where any goods in respect of which tax is levied under any other section are notified under this section, or where any goods notified under this section are denotified and tax in respect thereof is levied under any other section during the course of an assessment year, the tax payable by a dealer shall be computed as follows, that is to say - (a) for the period the goods are subject to liability to tax under this section, on the turnover of purchases or sales thereof as the case may be; and (b) for the period the goods are subject to the liability to tax under any other section, on the turnover of sales thereof. (7) (a) Every purchase within Uttar Pradesh by a dealer, either directly or through another, whether on his own account or on account of any one else, shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be the first purchase, unless the dealer proves otherwise to the satisfaction of the assessing authority after having furnishing such declaration or certificate, obtained from the selling dealer, in such form and manner and within such period, as may be prescribed. (b) Every sale within Uttar Pradesh by a dealer, either directly or through another, whether on his own account or on account of any one else, shall, for the purposes of sub-section (2), be deemed to be a sale to a person other than registered dealer, unless the dealer selling the goods proves otherwise, to the satisfaction of the assessing authority after having furnished such declaration or certificate, obtained from the purchaser of such goods, in such form and manner and within such period, as may be prescribed. (8) Every notification made under this section shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid before each House of the State Legislature, while it is in sessions for a total period of not less than fourteen days, extending in its one session or more than one successive sessions, and shall, unless some later date is appointed, take effect from the date of its publication in the Gazette, subject to such modifications or annulments as the two Houses of the Legislature may during the said period agree to make, however, that any such modification or annulments shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder except that any imposition, assessment, levy or collection of tax or penalty shall be subject to the said modification or annulment. Explanation.- (1) For the purposes of this Act, the following goods shall be deemed to be different from each other, namely : (a) Khandsari, molasses, including Sheera-sayar, Sheera galawat and sheera salawat; (b) rab, including rab sayar, rab galawat and rab salawat; (c) gur lauta and raskat; and accordingly, nothing in this section shall be coustrued to prevent the imposition, levy or collection of tax under section 3-A in respect of any one of the said goods merely because tax has been imposed, levied or collected under this section in respect of any other of them, or vice versa. Explanation II.- For the purposes of assessment relating to any period commencing on October 1, 1964 and ending with November 14, 1971, split or processed foodgrains, cereals or pulses shall be deemed to be different from unsplit or unprocessed foodgrains, cereals or pulses and accordingly, nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent imposition, levy or collection of tax in respect of the first purchase relating to such period, of split or processed foodgrains, cereals or pulses merely because tax has been imposed, levied or collected earlier in respect of such foodgrains, cereals or pulses in their unsplit or unprocessed form. " 3. Relying upon the provisions contained in sub-section (7) of section 3-D, Mr. Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that the order passed by the State Government for purchasing the rejected wheat by the roller mills was issued under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. The Regional Food Controller himself is registered under the U. P. Sales Tax Act as a dealer and if it purchases any wheat, rejected or otherwise, liability of payment of tax, as far as sales tax is concerned, would be his. In view of sub-section (7) of section 3-D it was contended that every purchase within Uttar Pradesh by a dealer, either directly or through another, whether on his own account or on account of any one else, shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be the first purchase, unless the dealer proves to the satisfaction of the assessing authority after having furnished such declaration or certificate, obtained from the selling dealer, in such form and manner and within such period, as may be prescribed. In this regard the attention of the court was drawn towards sub-rule (1) of rule 12-B of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 which provides that "the certificates or declarations REFERRED TO in sub-section (7) of section 3-D shall be in forms III-C (1), III-C (2), III-C (3), III-C (4) and III-C (5)". In this regard the attention of the court was drawn towards sub-rule (1) of rule 12-B of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 which provides that "the certificates or declarations REFERRED TO in sub-section (7) of section 3-D shall be in forms III-C (1), III-C (2), III-C (3), III-C (4) and III-C (5)". Sub-rule (12) of rule 12-B of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules also provides that "any dealer, who wishes to claim exemption from tax under sub-section (7) of section 3-D, shall submit to the Sales Tax Officer the portion marked original of the certificate, received by him under sub-rule (6) or (7) from other dealers, in respect of such claim up to the first date on which he is required to furnish his accounts for final assessment in respect of assessment year to which the claim relates. The Sales Tax Officer may in his discretion, require the dealer to produce for inspection the portion of the declaration marked duplicate. " 4. The main thrust of Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal is two-fold, firstly that the liability to pay the purchase tax of the rejected wheat is on the Regional Food Controller. He, being the first purchaser in accordance with sub-section (7) of section 3-D of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, secondly that the State Government by issuing various orders, had given assurance to the roller mill dealers, that in case they purchase the rejected wheat from the Regional Food Controller, the purchase tax would be paid by the Regional Food Controller. In this regard the attention of this Court was drawn to various Government Orders dated March 7, 1984, January 11, 1984, May 8, 1984 and May 21, 1984. 5. On the other side the learned Standing Counsel laid much emphasis on the Explanation II to sub-section (1) of section 3-D, which reads as under : " For the purposes of this sub-section, in relation to purchases of foodgrains in pursuance of any order made under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, including any purchase in excess of the levy share, the purchase first made by a dealer from the State Government or its purchasing agent shall be the first purchase of such foodgrains and the tax shall accordingly be levied at that point on such dealer. " 6. " 6. According to the learned Standing Counsel the aforesaid Government orders were issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Hence the roller mills would be deemed to be the first purchaser and the liability of payment of purchase tax would fall on the dealers. 7. In this regard the learned Standing Counsel placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. , reported in [1988] 69 STC 374; 1987 UPTC 1258. In paragraph 6 (page 380 of STC) of the aforesaid decision honourable Brijesh Kumar, J. , speaking on behalf of the Bench indicated : " Although the purchase made by the Food Corporation of India from the State is a second sale or purchase but under Explanation II to section 3-D (1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, it is deemed to be the first purchase. The Explanation II was added with retrospective effect by U. P. Act No. 23 of 1976. It is specifically in respect of purchase of foodgrains in pursuance of the orders made under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. " 8. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, it would be necessary for us to examine as to whether the aforesaid Government orders were issued under the authority vested to the State under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 deals with the powers of the Central Government to control production, supply, distribution, etc. , of essential commodities. We do not find that the aforesaid orders were issued either under Central Government or the State Government in accordance with the provisions contained in article 162 of the Constitution of India, have issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. In the case of Food Corporation of India [1988] 69 STC 374 (All.); 1987 UPTC 1258, the Division Bench held that the Food Corporation of India was neither a department of the Government nor did it perform any Government function. Its activities are purely business. The question of earning profit is wholly immaterial. It has to be assessed under the income-tax as provided under section 42 of the Act. Its activities are purely business. The question of earning profit is wholly immaterial. It has to be assessed under the income-tax as provided under section 42 of the Act. In the aforesaid case the petitioner also challenged the validity of explanation II to section 3-D (1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act as well as that of section 3-F of the Act on the ground that the said provisions are discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable. 9. In the aforesaid case it was contended, on behalf of the State that in the year 1981-82 the Regional Food Controller, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, had sold wheat to the petitioner on the specific assurance that in respect of the said wheat, the Regional Food Controller, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, shall be issuing form III-C (2) and for the said correspondence assessed the purchase tax, under section 3-D (1), Explanation II of the Sales Tax Act. This was the example which clearly shows that F. C. I. was not liable who purchased from the other dealer might also be purchased from the State Government. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances the correct rule that the assertion was thus not maintainable. Therefore, no discrimination arose at all. 10. We do not find anywhere, that in the present case it is not the case of the respondents that the State Government had purchased the rejected wheat under the provisions of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. In para 25 of the writ petition it has been averred by the petitioner that the Regional Food Controller had not purchased the rejected wheat under any orders issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and in that view of the matter, the Regional Food Controller, Moradabad, would be the first purchaser of the wheat sold to the petitioner and the liability of tax under section 3-D of the U. P. Sales Tax Act would be on the Regional Food Controller, Moradabad, and not on the petitioner. In para 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by Jiwan Singh only this was mentioned that the contents of paragraphs 19 to 26 of the writ petition are not admitted and denied. A mere cryptic denial without even asserting that the Regional Food Controller had purchased the wheat under the provisions of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, cannot be deemed to be assertion in the real sense. A mere cryptic denial without even asserting that the Regional Food Controller had purchased the wheat under the provisions of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, cannot be deemed to be assertion in the real sense. It was incumbent upon the respondents to produce before this Court the orders either issued by the State Government or the Central Government authorising the Regional Food Controller to purchase the rejected wheat in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act or to assert any clear promise that the Regional Food Controller, Moradabad, purchased the rejected wheat from the farmers after the same was rejected by the F. C. I. in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. 11. The learned Standing Counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the letter of one Sri Shail Kumar Mukharji, Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, addressed to the Regional Food Controller dated September 3, 1985 wherein it was indicated that as in the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 under the price support scheme, orders were passed in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, hence after obtaining the opinion further from the law department, the liability to pay the tax would be on the roller mills in accordance with the provisions of Explanation II of sub-section (1) of section 3-D of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. 12. Before deciding this question as to whether the Regional Food Controller is the first purchaser or not within the meaning of either Explanation II of sub-section (1) of section 3-D or sub-section (7) of section 3-D of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, certain factual aspects are necessary to be examined. 13. Sri Lal Chandra Ojha, Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, in his letter dated January 11, 1984 indicated that it was decided that the purchase tax had been paid to the department concerned, but in case the tax has not been paid, hence the purchasing organisation would pay the same to the sales tax department. In his letter dated March 7, 1984, issued by Sawal Kumar Mukharji, Secretary to Uttar Pradesh Government, addressed to all the Regional Food Controllers indicated that on the purchase of the rejected wheat, tax is payable at the rate of Rs. 6. 04. In his letter dated March 7, 1984, issued by Sawal Kumar Mukharji, Secretary to Uttar Pradesh Government, addressed to all the Regional Food Controllers indicated that on the purchase of the rejected wheat, tax is payable at the rate of Rs. 6. 04. This has been decided that it must have been ensured that the purchasing organisation would have been paid the tax to the sales tax department, but if the same has not been paid, then the purchasing organisation would pay the tax to the sales tax department. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the other Government orders dated May 8, 1984 and May 21, 1984 which were filed in a similar writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 452 of 1985 wherein it was clearly indicated that the liability to pay the purchase tax would not lie upon the roller flour mills, hence the purchasing agency should issue form III-C (2 ). 14. In the case of Modern Proteins Ltd. v. Food Corporation of India, reported in [1983] 52 STC 403 (AP), wherein the petitioners company requested the respondent to send C forms envisaged by section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. The Food Corporation of India however by its letter dated September 19, 1980 refused to issue C forms on the ground that the rate quoted by the petitioners company is inclusive of sales tax. It was contended by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad, on behalf of the Food Corporation of India that there was no statutory obligation imposed upon it expressly either by the Central Sales Tax Act or by the Rules made thereunder to issue C forms, but this contention was repelled by the court as section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act makes it abundantly clear that if in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, any sales in effected by a registered dealer, of the goods described in sub-section (3), the tax shall be only 4 per cent of the turnover. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, it was held that when the Act envisages that only a tax of 4 per cent is leviable in the case of inter-State sales and not 10 per cent under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act in respect of such sales and entitles the registered dealer to pay this concessional rate of tax and prescribes the mode by which he can claim this concessional rate, it could not have been the intention of the Legislature to defeat this provision at the sweet will and pleasure of the purchaser of the goods. Form C can be signed only by the purchaser of the goods and it is only by filing such forms, the registered dealer can take advantage of the provisions contained in section 8 of the Act; and that right cannot be defeated by the volition of another registered dealer who is the purchaser. It cannot be the intention of the Legislature to deny this benefit upon the refusal of the purchaser to issue C forms and it is made clear by providing under sub-rule (3) of rule 12 that in case the original forms issued by the dealer are lost, the seller can demand the purchaser to issue a duplicate form, which necessarily implies that even initially there was such an obligation to issue C forms. Merely, because the contract does not stipulate that the Food Corporation of India shall issue C forms in regard to the inter-State sales to its sellers, it cannot refuse to issue the forms to its seller who is entitled to the benefit of section 8 (1) of the Act only on production of such forms. 15. After making the aforesaid observation, the court thereafter issued a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue C forms in respect of the turnover covered by section 8 (1) and (4) read with rule 12 (1) and 12 (8) (a) of the Rules REFERRED TO above, as requested by the petitioner-company in its letter dated August 1, 1980, in respect of the above transaction. 16. It is unfortunate two stands have been taken by the Government. 16. It is unfortunate two stands have been taken by the Government. On one side the State Government directed the Regional Food Controller to issue form III-C on one hand and on the second hand it took a stand that as the orders were issued by the State Government under the provisions of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, its case is covered under Explanation II of sub-section (1) of section 3-D and hence it is not liable to the tax. 17. It is a settled legal position that when any person or body of a person on the basis of the assurance or promise, given by the State, carries on its obligation at least the State Government cannot resile from the assurance or promise made to any person or body of a person. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be made applicable against the statute and as the State Government passed the orders under Explanation II, sub-section (1) of section 3-D, meaning thereby the orders were passed under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, the first purchaser would be the roller flour mills and not the Regional Food Controller. We have already indicated that there is nothing existing on the record to verify the conclusion that the Government orders by means of which the assurance or promise were made, were issued either by the State Government or the Central Government under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Hence the plea which has been sought to be raised by the learned Standing Counsel, in our view, is misconceived and untenable. 18. In the case of Tracto Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Kanpur v. Union of India reported in 1991 UPTC 241, the case of the petitioner is that when Ganesh Flour Mills vested in the corporation, the responsibility to issue form III-Kha was that of the corporation and so also to make payment of the outstanding bills. Further the outstanding payments were duly made by the corporation. The corporation also initially supplied form III-Kha in respect of some transactions for different periods to different petitioners and for the remaining it kept assuring the petitioners that the same shall be supplied to them in due course. Further the outstanding payments were duly made by the corporation. The corporation also initially supplied form III-Kha in respect of some transactions for different periods to different petitioners and for the remaining it kept assuring the petitioners that the same shall be supplied to them in due course. A voluminous correspondence has been filed by these petitioners making demand for form III-Kha and the reminders sent to the Corporation in the regard from time to time. Due to the refusal on the part of the Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation to issue form III-Kha to the petitioners and consequent to their non-submission before the sales tax authorities at the time of their respective assessments, the petitioners of the second group have also been subjected to sales tax assessments resulting in heavy demand running into several lacs which also includes a huge amount of penal interest. 19. In the case of Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. , reported in (1985) SCC 369; [1986] 59 Comp Cas 526 (SC), the honourable the then Chief Justice Mr. P. N. Bhagawati observed that "there can therefore, be no doubt that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable against the Government in the exercise of its Governmental, public or executive functions and the doctrine of executive necessity or freedom of future executive action cannot be invoked to defeat the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. We must concede that the subsequent decision of this Court in Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana [1980] 3 SCR 689; AIR 1980 SC 1285 , takes a slightly different view and holds that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not available against the exercise of executive functions of the State and the State cannot be prevented from exercising its functions under the law. This decision also expresses its disagreement with the observations made in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills case [1979] 44 STC 42 (SC) that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be defeated by invoking the defence of executive necessity, suggesting by necessary implication that the doctrine of executive necessity is available to the Government to escape its obligation under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. We find it difficult to understand how a Bench of two Judges in Jit Ram case [1980] 3 SCR 689; AIR 1980 SC 1285 , could possibly overturn or disagree with what was said by another Bench of two Judges in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills case [1979] 44 STC 42 (SC ). If the Bench of two Judges in Jit Ram case [1980] 3 SCR 689; AIR 1980 SC 1285 found themselves unable to agree with the law laid down in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills case [1979] 44 STC 42 (SC), they could have referred Jit Ram case [1980] 3 SCR 689; AIR 1980 SC 1285 to a larger Bench, but we do not think it was right on their part to express their disagreement with the enunciation of the law by a co-ordinate Bench of the same court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills case [1979] 44 STC 42 (SC ). We have carefully considered both the decisions of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills case [1979] 44 STC 42 (SC), and Jit Ram case [1980] 3 SCR 689; AIR 1980 SC 1285 and we are clearly of the view that what has been laid down in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills case [1979] 44 STC 42 (SC), represents the correct law in regard to the doctrine of promissory estoppel and we express our disagreement with the observations in Jit Ram case [1980] 3 SCR 689; AIR 1980 SC 1285 to the extent that they conflict with the statement of the law in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills case [1979] 44 STC 42 (SC), and introduce reservations cutting down the full width and amplitude of the propositions of law laid down in that case. 20. There is no dearth as far as the doctrine of promissory estoppel is concerned, which we have not multiplied. It has been a settled position that when as assurance or promise is made by a person or a group of persons, may be the state, the person making such assurance, promise or representations cannot be resile from it. 21. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court indicated that : " Our conclusion is further fortified by another feature of the statute, namely, the absence of any requirement that the selling dealer must obtain form III-B from the purchasing dealer simultaneously or prior to the supply of the goods to the purchasing dealer. 21. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court indicated that : " Our conclusion is further fortified by another feature of the statute, namely, the absence of any requirement that the selling dealer must obtain form III-B from the purchasing dealer simultaneously or prior to the supply of the goods to the purchasing dealer. This is made amply clear by clause (5) of rule 25-B which states that the selling dealer may furnish to the sales tax officer the original of the declaration form III-B up to the date on which he is required to furnish accounts for final assessment in respect of the year to which the claim pertains. " 22. In the case of Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. , reported in 1985 SCC 369 [1986] 59 Comp. Cas. 526, wherein the court considered the cost of packing includible in the value of the cigarettes for the purpose of assessment to excise duty. It was conceded on behalf of the Union of India, it was stated that the cost of final packing in corrugated fibre-board containers would be liable to be included in the value of the cigarettes for the purpose of assessment to excise duty. 23. As we have indicated above that in numerous letters it was made clear by the State Government that the liability to pay the purchase tax on the rejected wheat would be on the Regional Food Controller and he was even directed to issue form III-C. Now the State Government cannot be permitted to resile from the stand that the liability to the purchase tax would be upon the flour roller mills. 24. In view of what we have indicated above, the writ petition succeeds a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to issue form III-C (2) in respect of the rejected wheat sold by them as registered dealers to the petitioner during the assessment year 1983-84 within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. However, it is made clear that our observations pertaining to the liability to pay the purchase tax would not create any hurdle in the way of sales tax to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Writ petition allowed. .