9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
(i) Competence of State Legislature under Sub-section (1A) of Section 40 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. (ii) Ultra vires status of Sub-section (1A) of Section 40 under Article 245(1) read with Article 246(3) of the Constitution of India. (iii) Opposition of Sub-section (1A) of Section 40 to Section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act. (iv) Validity of Section 6 (1) of the Mysore Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1962 as a colorable piece of legislation. (v) Revival of barred rights by Sub-section (1A) of Section 40. (vi) Contravention of the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution by Sub-section (1A) of Section 40. Detailed Analysis: Issue (i) - Competence of State Legislature: The petitioners did not argue this point after reviewing the judgment in W.P. No. 287 of 1960 (Mys), as it was already covered by that decision. Therefore, this issue was not addressed in the current judgment. Issue (ii) - Ultra Vires Status under Articles 245(1) and 246(3): Similarly, the petitioners did not argue this point based on the precedent set in W.P. No. 287 of 1960 (Mys), and it was not discussed further. Issue (iii) - Opposition to Section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act: This point was also not argued by the petitioners, referencing the same earlier judgment, and was not examined in this case. Issue (iv) - Colorable Legislation: The court examined whether the State Legislature had the competence to enact the provision in question. It was stated that the vires of legislation depend on the competence of the legislature, not on the motive behind the legislation. The doctrine of colorable legislation revolves around the question of competency, not bona fides or mala fides. As long as the legislature is competent to pass a law, the motives are irrelevant. Issue (v) - Revival of Barred Rights: The court noted that legislatures have plenary powers over their legislative fields, including enacting retrospective and retroactive legislation. It was clarified that when a debt is barred, it means the remedy is barred, not the debt itself. Therefore, if the bar is removed, the debt can be recovered. This view was supported by the decision in S. C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas. The court held against the petitioners on this point. Issue (vi) - Contravention of Equality Clause (Article 14): This was the most controversial point. The petitioners argued that the amendment to Section 40 was ultra vires of Article 14 as it differentiated without valid reasons between different classes of assessees. The court considered several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastry, and observations by Chagla, C.J. in S. C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas. However, the court found these cases distinguishable. The court noted that a classification is reasonable if it is not arbitrary and rests on pertinent differences. Desai, J.'s view in the same case supported the classification as it aimed to prevent income from escaping assessment. The court associated itself with Desai, J.'s observations and rejected the petitioners' contention. Conclusion: The court held that the petitions failed and dismissed them, making no order as to costs. The decision emphasized the presumption of validity for legislative provisions unless clearly proven otherwise.
|
