9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (3) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with them), for the respondents in W.P. Nos. 125 to 135 of 1963. O.C. Mathur, J.B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain of J.B. Dadachanji and Co., for the petitioner in W.P. No. 233 of 1963. R.N. Sachthey, for the respondents in W.P. No. 233 of 1963. -------------------------------------------------- The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J. -This group of 12 writ petitions raises a common question about the validity of the Orissa Sales Tax Validation Act, 1961 (Act No. 7 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts on which the petitioners rely are similar, and so, we shall mention the facts in the first group consisting of writ petitions Nos. 125-135 of 1963. The petitioner in this group is Shri Epari Chinna Krishna Moorthy, Proprietor, Epari Chinna Krishna Moorthy and Sons, Berhampur, Orissa. He is a merchant who carries on business in "bullion and specie" and gold and silver ornaments at Berhampur and as such merchant, he has been registered as "dealer" under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act No. 14 of 1947). After the said Act came into force, the Government of Orissa purporting to exercise its authority under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim for exemption under the notification in question. The main controversy before the High Court was about the precise denotation of the word "manufacturer" used in the notification. The High Court held that the expression "manufacturer" meant the first owner of the finished products for whom it was made either by his paid employee or even by independent artisans on receipt of raw materials and labour charges from him. According to this view, the petitioners before the High Court were found to be manufacturers and as such entitled to claim exemption in respect of sale of gold ornaments made by them. This judgment was pronounced on March 13, 1959. J. Srirangam Brothers and Others v. Sales Tax Officer, Ganjam Circle, Berhampur [1959] 10 S.T.C. 257., Against this judgment the State of Orissa has filed appeals to this Court and they are numbered as Civil Appeals Nos. 92 to 94 of 1963. These appeals are still pending disposal. After the Orissa High Court pronounced its judgment in the writ petitions to which reference has been made, the impugned Act was passed by the Orissa Legislature on August 1, 1961. This Act received the assent of the Governor on September 10, 1961, and was pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay deem fit. The argument is, the power to grant exemption having been conferred on the State Government, it was validly exercised by the State Government and though the Legislature may withdraw such exemption, it cannot do so retrospectively. It is obvious that if the State Government which is the delegate of the Legislature can withdraw the exemption granted by it, the Legislature cannot be denied such right. But it is urged that once exemption was validly granted, the Legislature cannot withdraw it retrospectively, because that would be invalidating the notification itself. We are not impressed by this argument. What the Legislature has purported to do by section 2 of the impugned Act is to make the intention of the notification clear. Section 2 in substance declares that the intention of the delegate in issuing the notification granting exemption was to confine the benefit of the said exemption only to persons who actually produce gold ornaments or employ artisans for that purpose. We do not see how any question of legislative incompetence can come in the present discussion. And, if the State Government was given the power either to grant or withdraw the exemption, that cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egislature thought it was not necessary to give them the benefit of the exemption, it cannot be said that the classification made by the Legislature has no rational connection with the object intended to be achieved by it. This argu- ment assumes that the petitioners belong to the same class as the persons to whom the benefit of the exemption is available. But as we have already stated, these two categories are distinct and there is no sameness or similarity between them. It was also suggested by Mr. Sastri that the result of the impugned provision is to deny the benefit of the exemption to the poorer classes of persons who are engaged in the business of manufacturing gold ornaments, and in that connection, he has commented on the fact that the notification gives the benefit of the exemption to persons who run manufactories but it denies that benefit to persons who carry on the work of producing gold ornaments on a smaller scale, and so, are unable to run a manufactory. This argument is fallacious. The notification as interpreted by section 2 of the impugned Act benefits the artisans who produce ornaments themselves and that obviously covers a very large section of independent ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
