TMI Blog1972 (12) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en retrospective effect. The fact that in those notifications it is mentioned that they were issued in pursuance of the power conferred under section 3-A does not in any way take away the intended legal effect. The intention of the Legislature is clear. - C.A. No. 1029 of 1972, - - - Dated:- 5-12-1972 - HEGDE K.S., JAGANMOHAN REDDY P. AND KHANNA H.R. JJ. Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate (Ravinder Narain, S.I. Thakar, P.C. Bhartari and R.K. Bhatt, Advocates, with him), for the appellant. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (O.P. Rana and Ravindra Bana, Advocates, with him), for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the court was delivered by HEGDE, J.- This appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted March 31, 1956. Under that notification, sales tax was imposed on the turnover of the sale of bricks at the point of sale by the manufacturer. That notification was superseded by Notification No. ST-1365/X-990 dated April 1, 1960. That notification was again superseded by Notification No. ST-1362/X-105 dated April 5, 1961, which in its turn was superseded by Notification No. ST-6438/X-1012 dated December 1, 1962. These notifications, inter alia, varied the rate of tax to be levied over the turnover relating to bricks. The validity of these notifications was challenged before the High Court of Allahabad in Gurna Mal v. State of U.P. [1970] 26 S.T.C. 270. During the pendency of the case, the Governor of U.P. issued the U.P. Sales Tax (Am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or according to prevalent commercial practice are not ordinarily sold, at more than one point." Under that Act, the assessments made were sought to be validated and the tax recovered protected. The validity of that amendment came up for consideration before the Allahabad High Court in Krishna Brick Field v. State of U.P.[1972] 29 S.T.C. 15. A Full Bench of that High Court held that section 3-A(1) was unconstitutional inasmuch as it delegated essential legislative functions to the State Government and further the power conferred under section 3-A to the Government was an arbitrary power and consequently it was violative of article 14 of the Constitution. After that decision, the U.P. Legislature again amended the Act by the U.P. Sales Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ging section only in its prospective operation. We are unable to accept any of these contentions as correct. We have earlier noticed that the High Court struck down the levy in Krishna Brick Field's case [1972] 29 S.T.C. 15., on two grounds, viz., (1) that the Act delegated the essential legislative powers to the State Government, and (2) that the levy is violative of article 14 of the Constitution. The latter conclusion was based on the ground that the discretion conferred on the Government is an arbitrary discretion. As seen earlier, the Legislature has now incorporated the impugned notifications as part of section 3-AB. Those notifications have now ceased to be subordinate legislations. They are now part of the law enacted by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary implication to overrule the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Krishna Brick Field's case[1972] 29 S.T.C. 15. On the other hand, it has accepted the decision as correct but has sought to remove the basis of the decision by retrospectively changing the law. This court has pointed out in several cases the distinction between encroachment on the judicial power and the nullification of the effect of a judicial decision by changing the law retrospectively. The former is outside the competence of the Legislature but the latter is within its permissible limits. In the instant case, what the Legislature has done is to amend the law retrospectively and thereby remove the basis of the decision rendered by the High Court. Such a course cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
