1983 (8) TMI 67 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Finance Act of 1983.
2. Conditions imposed in Notification No. 33/83 [GSR 77(E)/83].
3. Legislative competence of the Parliament.
4. Violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
5. Retrospective effect of Notification No. 22/1982.
6. Violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
7. Arbitrary and discriminatory nature of conditions in the notification.

Detailed Analysis of the Judgment:

1. Constitutional Validity of Section 53 of the Finance Act of 1983:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Finance Act of 1983, arguing that it violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. They contended that Section 53 was beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament as it purported to retain monies not collected under the authority of law, violating Article 265 of the Constitution. The court examined the historical context and legislative intent behind Section 53, concluding that the Parliament had the power to enact retrospective legislation and that the section was valid within the legislative framework.

2. Conditions Imposed in Notification No. 33/83 [GSR 77(E)/83]:
The petitioners argued that the conditions imposed in Notification No. 33/83 were arbitrary, irrational, and discriminatory. They contended that the conditions regarding production and clearance were impossible to comply with and thus violated their rights. The court analyzed the historical background of the match manufacturing industry and the government's intent to protect the cottage sector. It concluded that the conditions were reasonable and necessary to prevent unintended benefits to larger manufacturers, thereby upholding the notification.

3. Legislative Competence of the Parliament:
The petitioners claimed that the Parliament exercised judicial power in enacting Section 53, which was beyond its legislative competence. The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions affirming the Parliament's power to enact retrospective legislation, especially in taxation matters. It held that the Parliament had the authority to validate past actions and neutralize judicial decisions by changing the law retrospectively.

4. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g):
The petitioners argued that Section 53 and the conditions in the notification violated their fundamental rights by imposing unreasonable restrictions on their trade. The court held that the classification of match manufacturers based on output was reasonable and aimed at benefiting the cottage sector. It found no violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), stating that the retrospective application of the law was not arbitrary or unreasonable.

5. Retrospective Effect of Notification No. 22/1982:
The court examined whether the retrospective effect of Notification No. 22/1982 was valid. It referenced Supreme Court rulings that allowed retrospective legislation to validate past actions and collections. The court concluded that the retrospective application was necessary to clarify the legislative intent and prevent loss of revenue, thereby upholding its validity.

6. Violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioners contended that Section 53 violated Article 265, which mandates that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. The court held that retrospective legislation was within the Parliament's power and did not violate Article 265. It emphasized that the retrospective effect was intended to correct defects and validate past collections.

7. Arbitrary and Discriminatory Nature of Conditions in the Notification:
The petitioners argued that the conditions in the notification were discriminatory and arbitrary. The court held that the conditions were necessary to identify and benefit the cottage sector, which was the government's intent. It found the classification based on output to be reasonable and not discriminatory, thereby upholding the conditions in the notification.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all writ petitions, rejecting the petitioners' contentions and upholding the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Finance Act of 1983 and the conditions imposed in Notification No. 33/83. The retrospective effect of Notification No. 22/1982 was also upheld as valid and necessary to clarify legislative intent and prevent loss of revenue. The court found no violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 265 of the Constitution of India.

← Previous Next →