TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Rs. 39,442 were not accounted for in the books. On 5th June, 1984 the goods were seized and later on a notice was given to them proposing to confiscate those goods. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging that order and also challenging the vires of section 28(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and obtained an order of staying confiscation. Section 28(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act says that any officer shall have power to seize and confiscate any goods which are found in any office, shop, godown, vehicle, vessel or any other place of business or any building or place of the dealer, but not accounted for by the dealer in his accounts, registers and other documents maintained in the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been erased from the statute book and that, in any case, that provision should not be deemed to have been there on the statute book on 5th June, 1984 when the seizure had taken place. The argument of the learned counsel suffers from a popular fallacy about the nature and consequence of a court declaring a provision of law as ultra vires the powers of the legislature. Such a declaration would not have the effect of erasing a statute or repealing a statute which has been duly passed by the legislature. The judicial declaration will have only the effect of refusing to implement and enforce the statute which has undoubtedly been made by the legislature but found by the court to be ultra vires of its authority. In strict legal parlance as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration merely declares what the law is and never does it enact it. A judicial declaration is not constitutive of rights. It is merely declaratory of rights. For that reason, it must be held that section 28(6) of the Act is not recommissioned from the date of judgment of Transport Corporation of India case [1985] 60 STC 14 (AP) on 28th December, 1984. At the worst it might be held to have been recharged on that day fully. The constitution truth is that section 28(6) of the Act is always there for the officers to exercise those powers. We accordingly hold that the seizure of the goods on 5th June, 1984 is fully authorised under the law and that the goods so seized should be dealt with under the proviso to that section. But the petitioner obta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate Legislature. It is well-settled rule of law that legislative power extends to enacting incidental and ancillary measures which are necessary for giving content and effect to a legislation made. The one who keeps a house cannot be denied the right to keep a watchman. This principle of interpretation applies to a constitutional entry like item 54 in the Second List. We find, therefore, nothing unconstitutional in section 28(6) of the Act which is merely an ancillary measure. There is also another reason for upholding this type of legislation. The Supreme Court has observed in R.K. Garg v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 2138 and State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal [1986] 4 SCC 566, that the courts should not light-heartedly invalidate fiscal e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
