1978 (7) TMI 230 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the constitutional validity of sections 8(1), (2), (2A) and section 9(2), (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Examination of the correctness of the single Bench judgment in Malwa Sugar Mills' case. Repelling the challenge against the provisions of sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Repelling the challenge against the validity of section 5 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis:
The judgment of the Court focused on the challenge to the constitutional validity of specific sections of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioners in the four Civil Writ Petitions conceded their inability to challenge the vires of sections 8 and 9 of the Act due to binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd. The Court noted that the challenge to the validity of the provisions in question had already been rejected by the Supreme Court, leaving no grounds for further argument.

The Court then examined the correctness of the single Bench judgment in Malwa Sugar Mills' case, which was found to be inadequately supported by legal principles and authorities. The Division Bench judgment in Babu Ram Jagdish Kumar's case extensively considered and rejected challenges to the constitutionality of the provisions, which the petitioners did not contest. Consequently, the Court overruled the single Bench judgment in Malwa Sugar Mills' case based on the Division Bench's exhaustive analysis.

Additionally, the Court referenced a recent Division Bench judgment in Tarsem Lal Sham Lal v. State of Punjab, where a similar challenge against sections 8 and 9 of the Act was repelled. Notably, no arguments were raised against the validity of section 5 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act in the relevant writ petitions. Ultimately, the Court dismissed all four writ petitions due to the lack of merit. Despite the dismissal, the petitioners were not burdened with costs, given the fair stance taken by their counsel.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the challenged provisions, overruling the single Bench judgment and emphasizing the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court. The judgment serves as a comprehensive analysis of the legal issues raised and provides clarity on the interpretation and application of the relevant tax laws.