9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (3) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the validity of the Orissa Sales Tax Validation Act, 1961 (Act No. 7 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts on which the petitioners rely are similar, and so, we shall mention the facts in the first group consisting of writ petitions Nos. 125-135 of 1963. The petitioner in this group is Shri Epari Chinna Krishna Moorthy, Proprietor, Epari Chinna Krishna Moorthy and Sons, Berhampur, Orissa. He is a merchant who carries on business in "bullion and specie" and gold and silver ornaments at Berhampur and as such merchant, he has been registered as "dealer" under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act No. 14 of 1947). After the said Act came into force, the Government of Orissa purporting to exercise its authority under section 6 of the said Sales Tax Act issued a notification exempting certain articles from the operation of the charging section of that Act. Under this notification, gold ornaments were ordered to be exempted from sales tax "when the manufacturer selling them charges separately for the value of gold and the cost of manufacture." This notification was issued on July 1, 1949. During the course of his business, the petitioner manufactures gold ornaments by su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioners before the High Court were found to be manufacturers and as such entitled to claim exemption in respect of sale of gold ornaments made by them. This judgment was pronounced on March 13, 1959. J. Srirangam Brothers and Others v. Sales Tax Officer, Ganjam Circle, Berhampur [1959] 10 S.T.C. 257., Against this judgment the State of Orissa has filed appeals to this Court and they are numbered as Civil Appeals Nos. 92 to 94 of 1963. These appeals are still pending disposal. After the Orissa High Court pronounced its judgment in the writ petitions to which reference has been made, the impugned Act was passed by the Orissa Legislature on August 1, 1961. This Act received the assent of the Governor on September 10, 1961, and was published on September 18, 1961. It contains one operative provision in section 2. Section 2 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, the word "manufacturer" occurring against item 33 in the schedule to the notification of the Government of Orissa dated July 28, 1947, as amended by another notification of July 1, 1949, shall mean and shall always be deemed to have meant a person who by his own labour w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly granted, the Legislature cannot withdraw it retrospectively, because that would be invalidating the notification itself. We are not impressed by this argument. What the Legislature has purported to do by section 2 of the impugned Act is to make the intention of the notification clear. Section 2 in substance declares that the intention of the delegate in issuing the notification granting exemption was to confine the benefit of the said exemption only to persons who actually produce gold ornaments or employ artisans for that purpose. We do not see how any question of legislative incompetence can come in the present discussion. And, if the State Government was given the power either to grant or withdraw the exemption, that cannot possibly affect the Legislature's competence to make any provision in that behalf either prospectively or retrospectively. Therefore, there is no substance in the argument that the retrospective operation of section 2 of the impugned Act is invalid. Then, Mr. Sastri contends that this provision is discriminatory and as such, contravenes the equality before the law guaranteed by Article 14. This argument is also misconceived. It is not seriously disputed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between them. It was also suggested by Mr. Sastri that the result of the impugned provision is to deny the benefit of the exemption to the poorer classes of persons who are engaged in the business of manufacturing gold ornaments, and in that connection, he has commented on the fact that the notification gives the benefit of the exemption to persons who run manufactories but it denies that benefit to persons who carry on the work of producing gold ornaments on a smaller scale, and so, are unable to run a manufactory. This argument is fallacious. The notification as interpreted by section 2 of the impugned Act benefits the artisans who produce ornaments themselves and that obviously covers a very large section of independent artisans engaged in the trade. The notification also benefits persons who run manufactories and that ensures the continuous employment of artisans. That is why it seems to us that the main object of granting exemption can be said to be achieved by holding that "manufacturer" means either a manufacturer properly so called or one who engages artisans to manufacture gold ornaments. Mr. Sastri also argued that the retrospective operation of the impugned section sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
