1958 (11) TMI 20 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature to amend and extend the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1939.
2. Validity of the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation (Andhra Pradesh Extension and Amendment) Act, 1958.
3. Application of Article 246(3) of the Constitution regarding exclusive legislative power.
4. Relevance of precedents and legal principles related to legislative powers and adaptations.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature:
The petitioners argued that the Andhra Pradesh Legislature lacked the competence to amend and extend the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1939, to Telangana. They contended that post the creation of the Andhra State, the Madras Act became extra-territorial, and only the Madras Legislature could amend it. The Court, however, clarified that by virtue of Section 53 of the Andhra State Act, which corresponds to Section 119 of the States Re-organisation Act, all laws in force in the Madras territory incorporated into Andhra State continued to be operative. Thus, the Madras Act had the same force as laws made by the Andhra Legislature.

2. Validity of the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation (Andhra Pradesh Extension and Amendment) Act, 1958:
The petitioners challenged the validity of the 1958 Act on the grounds of legislative incompetence. The Court held that the Andhra State Legislature had the authority to amend or repeal laws within its jurisdiction, as empowered by Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the impugned Act extended the Madras Act, as amended by Andhra Pradesh, to the transferred territories, thus making it a valid legislative action.

3. Application of Article 246(3) of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that adapting and extending laws made by another legislature violated Article 246(3), which grants exclusive legislative power to State Legislatures. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that the Constitution does not prescribe any specific form for enacting laws. It emphasized that the legislature could adopt any pattern for law-making, including adapting and extending existing statutes. The Court cited the Privy Council's observation in Empress v. Burah, asserting that a Court cannot impose additional restrictions on legislative powers beyond those expressly stated in the Constitution.

4. Relevance of Precedents and Legal Principles:
The petitioners relied on various precedents, including Shib Nath v. Porter and Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada, to support their arguments. The Court found these cases inapplicable, as they dealt with different contexts, such as the delegation of powers and the interpretation of legislative competence under different constitutional frameworks. The Court emphasized that the legislative power of Andhra Pradesh to amend and extend the Madras Act was rooted in the specific provisions of the Andhra State Act and the States Re-organisation Act, and not in the precedents cited by the petitioners.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation (Andhra Pradesh Extension and Amendment) Act, 1958, was a valid piece of legislation. It dismissed the petitions, affirming the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature to amend and extend the Madras Act within its jurisdiction. The Court also rejected the argument that adapting and extending laws violated Article 246(3) of the Constitution, reiterating that the legislature could choose any form for enacting laws. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed with costs.