9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (4) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed after the Parliamentary Act declaring these goods to be essential for the life of the community. The Parliamentary Act declaring goods to be essential on which learned Advocate for the appellants relied for his present argument was Act LII of 1952. But after this Act, no Act was passed by the Hyderabad Legislature purporting to tax any sales of goods declared essential by Act LII of 1952. Therefore, it cannot be said that the transfers of coarse and medium cloth are not sales within the meaning of the principal Act. Appeal dismissed. - Civil Appeal No. 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 of 1955 - - - Dated:- 3-4-1958 - DAS S.R., VENKATARAMA AIYAR T.L., DAS S.K., SARKAR A.K. AND VIVIAN BOSE JJ. A.V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us or other appropriate writs directing the Sales Tax Officer not to collect tax on sales of coarse and medium cloth. The appellants contended that these goods had been declared essential goods and sales in respect of them were not liable to be taxed in view of Article 286(3) of the Constitution and Explanation (2) to section 2(k) of the Act, as the principal Act and the amending Act had not been reserved for the consideration of the President nor received his assent. The High Court delivered judgment on September 30, 1953, dismissing all the five applications. It however granted certificates under Article 132 of the Constitution. These appeals have come to us under these certificates. The High Court directed that as the point involved in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loth to be goods essential for the life of the community. This was a law passed expressly under the powers conferred on Parliament by Article 286(3). The appellants contend that in view of this Act which had come into force on August 9, 1952, the principal Act could not after its date impose any tax on the sales of coarse and medium cloth. Again, we are unable to agree. Article 286(3) states that the law of a State shall not impose a tax on the sale or purchase of any goods which have been declared by Parliament by law to be essential for the life of the community and therefore it con- templates a law passed by a State after the Parliamentary law declaring goods to be essential. Neither the principal Act nor its amendment by Act XXVII of 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , XXVII of 1952, was passed only with a view to get round the Parliamentary Act, LII of 1952. We have no sufficient materials in this case to accept that view. Besides, the validity of an Act depends on the legislative competency and if competency is not challenged, as it is not in this case, the Act must be a valid piece of legislation whatever may have been the intention which led to its enactment. We are not here concerned with a law which is not within the competency of the legislature but is disguised as such. As to such a law different considerations may apply. We are, therefore, unable to hold that Hyderabad Act, XXVII of 1952, was not a valid piece of legislation. It remains to deal with the contention based on Explanation (2) of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
