9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and constitutional validity of the Notification dated 5.6.2000. 2. Applicability of Articles 73, 256, 257, 301, and 304 of the Constitution of India. 3. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. 4. Repeal and validity of the Notification dated 1.7.1995. Summary: 1. Legality and Constitutional Validity of the Notification dated 5.6.2000: The appellants challenged the Notification issued by the State Government in G.O. Ms. No.83 dated 5.6.2000, which cancelled an earlier order dated 1.7.1995. The Notification was issued u/s 9(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963. The appellants argued that the withdrawal of the Notification was unconstitutional and violated the directives of the Central Government. The High Court rejected their challenge, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the letter dated 30th August 1993 from the Joint Secretary to the Government of India was not a directive but a request. 2. Applicability of Articles 73, 256, 257, 301, and 304 of the Constitution of India: The appellants contended that the Notification violated Articles 73, 256, and 257 of the Constitution, which deal with the executive power of the Union and the States. The Supreme Court held that these Articles did not apply to the case as there was no law specifying the principles of taxation on the subject matter. Regarding Article 301, which ensures freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse, the Court stated that imposition of a tax does not necessarily infringe this Article. The Court referred to the Automobile Transport case, emphasizing that compensatory taxes do not hinder trade and are outside the purview of Article 301. The Notification was found to be in compliance with Article 304, as the President's assent had been obtained. 3. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: The appellants invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel, arguing that the withdrawal of the concessional tax was an arbitrary exercise of power. The Supreme Court dismissed this plea, stating that a concession can be withdrawn in public interest. The Court cited previous judgments, including Sales Tax Officer vs. M/s Shree Durga Oil Mills, which held that there cannot be estoppel against any statute. The doctrine of promissory estoppel would not apply if public interest demanded the withdrawal of the concession. 4. Repeal and Validity of the Notification dated 1.7.1995: The appellants argued that after the withdrawal of the Notification dated 1.7.1995, there was a repeal of the relevant provision, and without an operative Notification, taxes could not be charged. The Supreme Court clarified that the Notification dated 1.7.1995 was issued u/s 9(1)(a) of the Taxation Act, while the impugned Notification was issued u/s 9(1)(b). The original Notification issued u/s 3 of the Taxation Act was still in operation and had not been questioned. Therefore, there was no requirement to issue a fresh Notification to make the levy. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the Notification dated 5.6.2000 and rejecting the appellants' challenges based on constitutional provisions and the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Court found that the impugned Notification did not violate any constitutional mandates and was within the legislative power of the State.
|
