1958 (8) TMI 39 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notifications dated 31st March 1956.
2. Competence of the U.P. Legislature to validate the notifications.
3. Compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. Detailed points raised by petitioners regarding orders passed by Sales Tax Officers.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notifications Dated 31st March 1956:
The petitioners challenged the validity of the notifications issued on 31st March 1956 under section 3A(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, as amended by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1956. The notifications were initially declared void by the Court as they were not issued under the amended section 3A(2). The U.P. Sales Tax (Validation) Act, 1958, was subsequently enacted to validate these notifications retrospectively. The Court held that the 1958 Act effectively created a legal fiction, deeming the notifications to have been issued under the amended section 3A(2), thus validating them. The Court concluded that all requirements for holding the notifications valid were satisfied, making them valid and enforceable.

2. Competence of the U.P. Legislature to Validate the Notifications:
The petitioners argued that the U.P. Legislature was not competent to validate the notifications. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that a legislature competent to pass an enactment on a subject can validate provisions made under its delegated authority. The Court emphasized that the U.P. Legislature had the power to either enact the notifications as part of its own Act with retrospective effect or create a legal fiction to validate the already issued notifications. The Court found that the U.P. Legislature acted within its legislative powers in enacting section 3 of the U.P. Sales Tax (Validation) Act, 1958.

3. Compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution:
The petitioners contended that section 3A(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, as deemed to exist on 31st March 1956, violated Article 14 of the Constitution by granting unfettered discretion to the State Government to discriminate between goods or classes of goods. The Court did not delve into whether Article 14 applied to discrimination between goods or classes of goods. Instead, it found that sub-section (3) of section 3A imposed a significant restriction by requiring every notification to be laid before the Legislative Assembly, which could amend or modify it. This legislative oversight provided a sufficient check on the State Government's power, ensuring it was not unfettered or discriminatory.

4. Detailed Points Raised by Petitioners Regarding Orders Passed by Sales Tax Officers:
Some petitions raised additional points challenging orders passed by Sales Tax Officers. The Court noted that these issues could be addressed through appeal, revision, or reference under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Court emphasized that writ petitions should not be entertained unless there were manifest errors apparent on the face of the record. After hearing the arguments, the Court did not find any such manifest errors justifying the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

Conclusion:
The petitions were dismissed, upholding the validity of the notifications dated 31st March 1956, affirming the competence of the U.P. Legislature to validate these notifications, and rejecting the claim of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court also directed petitioners to seek remedies through appropriate channels for other detailed points raised.