TMI Blog1971 (1) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to reopen the assessment and assess on the basis of Notification No. 909/X dated March 31, 1956. - Civil Appeal No. 914 of 1967, - - - Dated:- 21-1-1971 - SHAH J.C., HEGDE K.S. AND GROVER A.N. JJ. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (O.P. Rana, Advocate, with him), for the respondent. S.V. Gupte, Senior Advocate (P.N. Tewari, Advocate, and J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of J.B. Dadachanji, and Co., with him), for the appellant. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the court was delivered by HEGDE, J. -This is an assessee's appeal by certificate, arising from a writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court of Allahabad. The appellant is a pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 948. Thereafter the Parliament passed the Essential Goods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax on Sale and Purchase) Act in order to give effect to article 286(3) of the Constitution. That Act declared cereals, atta, maida, sooji and bran as essential goods. In view of that Act no law of a State Legislature imposing levy or authorising imposition of tax on sale or purchase of essential goods could take effect without the prior assent of the President. The U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance No. 9 of 1956 was promulgated with the prior assent of the President authorising the State Government to impose sales tax on essential goods from April 1, 1956. Thereafter the State Government issued Notification No. ST-909/X dated March 31, 1956, under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act again was declared ultra vires the Constitution by the Allahabad High Court. Thereafter the U.P. Sales Tax (Validation) Act, 1958 (U.P. Act No. 15 of 1958) was enacted. It received the assent of the President on May 3, 1958. It was published in the U.P. Gazette on May 6, 1958. It was given retro- spective effect as from March 31, 1956. The validity of Act No. 15 of 1958 has been upheld both by the Allahabad High Court as well as by this court. This in short is the history of the legislations with which we are concerned in this case. In this court Mr. S. V. Gupte, learned counsel for the appellant, challenged the validity of Notification No. 909/X dated March 31, 1956. That notification reads: "In exercise of the powers conferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that this notification was revived and was given retrospective effect and that section further says that the same shall be in force "until amended, varied or rescinded by any notification issued under any of the said sections". But curiously enough item 1 of Part A of the Schedule reads: "F.D. (A ST) Notification No. ST-909/X dated March 31, 1956 subject to its supersession by F.D. (A ST) Notifications No. ST-6068/X-1097-56 dated September 30, 1956 and No. ST-6069/X-1097-56 dated September 30, 1956." One cannot understand how a notification can be revived subject to its supersession by some other notification. Obviously reference to supersession of the Notification ST-909/X dated March 31, 1956, is wholly inconsistent with the langu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention that a portion of the turnover related to sales of controlled articles appears to have been taken before the High Court at a late stage; yet the High Court permitted the appellant to place material before it to satisfy the court that the relevant transactions cannot be considered as sales. From the affidavit filed by the assessee, it is not possible to conclude that the transactions in question are not "sales". The affidavit does not speak of any control over the sales. It merely refers to certain controls over purchases. On the material before us it is not possible to hold that any of those transactions are not "sales". In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
