TMI Blog1957 (12) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two criminal cases before the learned Magistrate above referred to appears to have based his arguments on a newspaper report of the above-said decision of the Madras High Court and contended before the learned Magistrate that section 22 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, was ultra vires of the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate took the view that there was force in the contention of the learned counsel and has made this reference. Section 22 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, as it stood at the time when the learned Magistrate made this reference, was as follows: "Save as provided in section 16, no assessment made and no order passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any assessing authority shall be called in question in any Court, and save as is provided in sections 14 and 15, no appeal or application for revision shall lie against any such assessment or order." The question as to the effect of section 22 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, had come up quite a number of times for consideration before the High Court of the former State of Mysore (Vide Kotrappa v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer[1951] 2 S.T.C. 35; A.I.R. 1951 Mys. 37., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madras High Court that section 16-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was repugnant to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Evidence Act and also offended Article 14 of the Constitution. In a Full Bench case reported in P.K. Velayudhan, In re[1955] 6 S.T.C. 331., the High Court of Travancore-Cochin had to consider the constitutional validity of section 21 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act. In that Full Bench case, their Lordships did not accept the contentions similar to those which had been advanced in the case of Guruviah Naidu, In re(3), and did not concede that the said decision laid down the correct law. Instead, they agreed with the views which had been expressed in the earlier Madras decision, viz., Syed Mohammed and Co. v. State of Madras[1952] 3 S.T.C. 367; A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 105., and held that the section in question was not ultra vires of any of the provisions of the Constitution, the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Indian Evidence Act. The State of Madras had appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court of Madras in Guruviah Naidu's case(3), and the decision pertaining to that appeal is reported in State of Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to a matter in the Concurrent List and a law made by Parliament in regard to the same subject in the Concurrent List; no question of repugnancy under Article 254 could arise in respect of a law made by the Legislature of a State in regard to a subject falling entirely within the State List and the State Legislature is acting wholly within its powers under the State List. This is the effect of the decision of the Privy Council reported in Megh Raj v. Allah RakhiaA.I.R. 1947 P.C. 72. Under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the Legislature of a State is competent to make a law pertaining to taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers. Under Entry 64 of List II, the Legislature of a State has the competence to make a law in regard to offences against laws with respect to any of the matters in the State List. Under Entry 65 of List II, the Legislature of a State has competence to legislate in regard to jurisdiction and powers of all Courts, except the Supreme Court, with respect to any of the matters in the State List. From a consideration of these entries taken together, it becomes clear that the Legislature of a State, in making a law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ist II, it can also provide for arrest and trial of the offenders who violate such laws. This seems to be the clear implication of Item 37 of List II and Item I of the Concurrent List." Again, in a decision of the Supreme Court which is reported in State of Bombay v. Narottamdas Jethabhai [1951] S.C.R. 51; A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 69., while considering the constitutional validity of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, the Supreme Court, with reference to entries in the List pertaining to the jurisdiction and powers of the Courts states as follows: "The effect of these entries is that while legislating with regard to the matters in their respective Legislative Lists, the two Legislatures are competent also to make provisions in the several Acts enacted by them, concerning the jurisdiction and powers of Courts in regard to the subject matter of the Acts, because otherwise the legislation may not be quite compete or effective. The words used in Entry 2 of List II and Entry 55 of List I are wide enough to empower the two Legislatures to legislate negatively as well as affirmatively, with regard to the jurisdiction of the Courts in respect of the matters within their respective legislative ambits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and by that process determine what portions thereof are intra vires and what are not ". The limitation which has been imposed by section 22 on the powers of the Courts in the matter of questioning any assessment made or order passed under the Act or the Rules thereunder by any assessing authority, cannot be viewed independently of the other provisions in the Act under which it is open to an aggrieved party to have recourse to remedies by way of appeal, revision or reference to the High Court, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act. It is only in consequence of a separate and adequate machinery provided for by the Act that it is enacted in section 22 that no such assessment or order shall be called in question in any Court. It merely amounts to saying that under the circumstances, except as provided under the Act itself, the Courts shall not have the power to question such assessment or order made under the Act or Rules by the assessing authority. A provision like this is also ancillary or incidental to the legislative competence which the Legislature of a State has to make a law in respect of a matter falling within the State List. We are not satisfied that by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act and is, therefore, opposed to rules of natural justice. There would have been substance in this objection, if the petitioners had been denied an opportunity of contesting the claim before an order of assessment was made. But where, as here, the tax is determined after notice to the assessees, it is not repugnant to rules of natural justice to provide that the validity of assessment shall not be questioned at the stage of realisation of the tax". The prohibition in section 22 of the Act applies to all persons in respect of whom any assessment has been made or any order has been passed by any assessing authority under the Act and the Rules; there is no discrimination as between persons falling under that category. Having regard to all these circumstances, we are not satisfied that there is any substance in the contention that section 22 of the Act offends Article 14 of the Constitution. We answer the question referred to us as follows: Section 22 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, is not ultra vires of the Constitution or the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the accused is not entitled to question any assessment or order made by the assessing authority under the Act or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|