1972 (3) TMI 80 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Amending Act without President's assent.
2. Retrospective application of the Amending Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer to revise an order merged with the High Court's order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Amending Act without President's Assent:
The petitioner challenged the legality of the Amending Act, arguing it should have been reserved for the President's consideration as it derogates the powers of the High Court. The court referred to the proviso to Article 200 of the Constitution, which mandates that any Bill derogating from the powers of the High Court should be reserved for the President's assent. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality, which stated that a legislature can validate a tax by removing the cause of invalidity without encroaching upon judicial powers. The court concluded that the Amending Act did not reverse the High Court's decisions but removed the defect pointed out by the court, thereby not encroaching upon judicial powers. Therefore, the contention that the Amending Act required the President's assent was rejected.

2. Retrospective Application of the Amending Act:
The petitioner argued that sections 6 and 7 of the Amending Act did not explicitly provide for retrospective application, thus not achieving the intended purpose of taxing watery coconuts for periods before the Act's commencement. The court noted that while section 5(2) explicitly stated retrospective application from 1st August 1963, similar language was not used in section 6. However, the court interpreted that clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of the newly inserted item 5-A in Schedule III implied retrospective application. Additionally, section 8 of the Amending Act explicitly allowed for assessments and reassessments for periods before the Act's commencement. The court concluded that sections 6, 7, and 8 were indeed retrospective, thereby validating assessments for anterior periods. This contention was also rejected.

3. Jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer to Revise an Order Merged with the High Court's Order:
The petitioner contended that the Commercial Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to revise an order that had merged with the High Court's order. The court distinguished this case from the Madras High Court decision in Ceylon Thowfeck Hotel v. The State of Madras, noting that the language in section 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Amending Act, which includes a non obstante clause, was different from the language in the Madras case. The court clarified that the Commercial Tax Officer revised his own earlier order, not the High Court's order, and thus had the jurisdiction to do so. This contention was also rejected.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity and retrospective application of the Amending Act and confirming the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer to revise the assessment order. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs amounting to Rs. 100.