9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1967 (2) TMI 74 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether in extending the Madras Act in the manner and to the extent it did under section 2(1) of the Principal Act the Pondicherry Legislature abdicated its legislative power in favour of the Madras Legislature Held that - Appeal allowed. As if the Pondicherry Legislature had extended the Madras Act together with such amendments which might be made in that Act up to April 1, 1966. Since the Amendment Act was thus passed on the footing that there was in existence a valid Act, viz., the said Principal Act, it is impossible to conceive that it was or intended to be an independent legislation extending thereunder the Madras Act. The Amendment Act was and was intended to be an amendment of the Principal Act and it would be stretching the language of the Amendment Act to a breaking point to construe it as an independent legislation whereby the Madras Act was retrospectively brought into operation as from April 1, 1966. That being so, and on the view that the Principal Act was still-born, the attempt to revive that which was void ab initio was frustrated and such an Act could have no efficacy.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1965 (Principal Act). 2. Delegation of legislative power by the Pondicherry Legislature to the Madras Legislature. 3. Impact of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1966 on the Principal Act. 4. Validity of proceedings under the Principal Act and its amendments. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1965 (Principal Act): The Principal Act extended the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 to Pondicherry, with modifications. The petitioner, a liquor merchant, challenged the Act's validity, arguing it was void due to the Pondicherry Legislature abdicating its legislative function to the Madras Legislature. The Act allowed the Madras Act, as amended up to April 1, 1966, to apply in Pondicherry, which the petitioner claimed was an improper delegation of legislative power. 2. Delegation of Legislative Power by the Pondicherry Legislature to the Madras Legislature: The court examined whether the Pondicherry Legislature's action constituted an abdication of its legislative power. It was argued that the Assembly refused to perform its legislative function by adopting the Madras Act and future amendments, leading to non-application of mind and refusal to discharge its legislative duty. The court noted that such delegation was not permissible as it amounted to a total surrender of legislative power in favor of the Madras Legislature, rendering the Principal Act void and "still-born." 3. Impact of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1966 on the Principal Act: The Amendment Act aimed to correct the defects of the Principal Act by retrospectively bringing it into force on April 1, 1966. The court considered whether the Amendment Act could revive a void Principal Act. It concluded that the Amendment Act, intended to amend the Principal Act, could not be construed as an independent legislation. Since the Principal Act was void ab initio, the Amendment Act could not cure the defect, and thus, the Principal Act remained ineffective. 4. Validity of Proceedings Under the Principal Act and Its Amendments: The court addressed whether the proceedings against the petitioner under the Principal Act, as amended, were valid. The Amendment Act's retrospective effect was intended to validate the Principal Act's provisions. However, the court held that since the Principal Act was void from the beginning, the Amendment Act could not revive it. Consequently, the proceedings under the Principal Act were invalid. Separate Judgments: Judgment by Shelat, J.: Shelat, J., delivering the majority judgment, emphasized that the Pondicherry Legislature's action amounted to an abdication of legislative power, rendering the Principal Act void. The Amendment Act could not revive a still-born Act, and thus, the petition was allowed with costs. Judgment by Bhargava, J.: Bhargava, J., in a separate judgment, concurred with the majority that the Principal Act was void due to excessive delegation. He also addressed the retrospective effect of the Amendment Act, concluding that it could not cure the defect of the Principal Act. Therefore, the petition was dismissed with costs. Order: In accordance with the majority opinion, the petitions were allowed with costs, and the Principal Act was declared void.
|
