TMI Blog1971 (10) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uor. Relying on that information the bidders must have given very high bids. The Government of Himachal Pradesh tried its best to persuade the Central Government to agree to change the law but it failed. In the process, the appellant must have suffered financially. - Civil Appeal No. 1313 of 1970, - - - Dated:- 5-10-1971 - HEGDE K.S. AND GROVER A.N. JJ. H.L. Sibal, Advocate-General for the State of Punjab (N.N. Goswamy and S.N. Mukerji, Advocates with him), for the appellants. V.C. Mahajan and R.N. Sachthey, Advocates, for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the court was delivered by HEGDE, J.- The appellant-firm are wine merchants, carrying on business at the Mall in Simla. In the auction for sale of the Indian-made foreign liquor and beer held on March 31, 1967, the appellant was the highest bidder for dealing in liquor under a L-2 licence as provided in the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules as applicable to certain parts of the then Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. The case for the appellant is that at the time of the auction, Deputy Commissioner, Simla, who is also the Collector of Excise and Taxati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legislative body to make or change any law; further the Himachal Pradesh Government is incompetent to change the law without the approval of the Union Government which is not a party to the writ petition. The first question that we have to decide is as to what was the representation made by the Deputy Commissioner at the time of the auction. As seen earlier the parties are not agreed on this point. The relevant allegation in the writ petition is found in paragraph 3 thereof. It reads: "...........it was also announced that no sales tax would be liable to be paid on the sales of Indian-made foreign liquor and beer..........." This statement does not show that the Deputy Commissioner gave an assurance to the bidders that the Himachal Pradesh Government had decided to abolish sales tax on the sale of Indian-made foreign liquor or beer. If the statement in the writ petition is correct, the Deputy Commissioner merely gave a wrong interpretation of the law. Apart from that, as mentioned earlier, it was denied on behalf of the respondents that the Deputy Commissioner had made such a representation. According to them all that the Deputy Commissioner stated at that time was that "the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. But the Division Bench while hearing the appeal of the appellant did not analyse the evidence bearing on the point nor did it consider the effect of the material before it. It held "it is clear from the admission contained in paragraph 2 of the letter dated the 16th of January, 1968, that there was some announcement on the 31st of March, 1967, when the auction was held and it was not an ambiguous announcement. It was presumably specific to the effect that either the Government of Himachal Pradesh had decided to abolish the sales tax or that they were going to achieve its abolition in respect of the merged areas". This is at best a speculative conclusion. Our attention has not been invited to any material on record on the basis of which that conclusion could have been arrived at by the Division Bench. The two letters referred to earlier do not support that conclusion. The averment in the writ petition, as seen earlier, does not accord with the case taken at the time of the arguments. The Government has denied that the Deputy Commissioner had either been authorised or he had made the representation at the time of the auction that the Government had decided to abolish the sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax imposed under the law. What the appellant really wants is a mandate from the court to the competent authority to delete the concerned entry from Schedule A and include the same in Schedule B. We shall not go into the question whether the Government of Himachal Pradesh on its own authority was competent to make the alteration in question or not. We shall assume for our present purpose that it had such a power. The power to impose a tax is undoubtedly a legislative power. That power can be exercised by the Legislature directly or subject to certain conditions the Legislature may delegate that power to some other authority. But the exercise of that power, whether by the Legislature or by its delegate is an exercise of a legislative power. The fact that the power was delegated to the executive does not convert that power into an executive or administrative power. No court can issue a mandate to a Legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly no court can direct a subordinate legislative body to enact or not to enact a law which it may be competent to enact. The relief as framed by the appellant in his writ petition does not bring out the real issue calling for determination. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ajority, this court affirmed the decision of the Bombay High Court. Therein this court was not called upon to issue a mandate to alter any law. Section 8 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act provides: "It shall be the duty of the Collector, subject to the orders of the Provincial Government, to fix and to levy the assessment for land revenue. Where there is no right on the part of the superior holder in limitation of the right of the Provincial Government to assess, the assessment shall be fixed at the discretion of the Collector subject to the control of the Provincial Government. When there is a right on the part of the superior holder in limitation of the right of the Provincial Government, in consequence of a specific limit to assessment having been established and preserved, the assessment shall not exceed such specific limit." Section 8 did not impose any land revenue. It only imposed a duty on the Collector to fix and to levy the assessment. Power to levy land revenue was the prerogative of the Government. The court held that in view of the seventy years' possession of the land by the Corporation openly and in assertion of a right to hold that land free of rent, it had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oollen textiles and goods. It provided for the grant to an exporter certificates to import raw materials of a total amount equal to 100 per cent. of the f.o.b. value of his exports. Clause 10 of the scheme provided that the Textile Commissioner could grant an import certificate for a lesser amount if he is satisfied, after holding an enquiry, that the declared value of the goods exported was higher than the real value of the goods. The scheme was extended to exports of woollen textiles and goods to Afghanistan. The Textile Commissioner without holding an enquiry as required by clause 10 of the scheme, arbitrarily reduced the import quota of some of the exporters on the basis of some private enquiry. One such exporter moved the High Court for the issuance of a writ to the Government to abide by the terms of the scheme. On behalf of the Government, it was urged that the scheme contained only administrative instructions and the Government was competent to change the scheme depending upon the exigencies of situation. On facts this court came to the conclusion that the scheme was not changed because of any exigencies of situation and the import quota of some of the exporters was reduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
