9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (4) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t preparations containing alcohol were exempt from the payment of tax under the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter called "the Act". The respondent is running a factory for manufacturing spirituous and medicinal preparations containing alcohol at Jind in the district of Sangrur. Before the coming into force of the Constitution of India on January 26, 1950, "medicinal or toilet preparations" fell within the definition of "excisable articles" on which the excise duty was payable under section 3(6)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. The Act came into force in 1948. Under its provisions tax was levied on the sale of goods with the exception of articles exempted under section 6 of the Act. These articles were given in Schedule B whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eparations of the nature which were covered by the Central Act, for the reason, that the respondent could no longer claim the benefit of the exemption contained in entry 37 of Schedule B to the Act. The respondent filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the levy of sales tax on the alcoholic preparations on which excise duty was being paid under the Central Act. This petition succeeded before a learned Single Judge of the High Court who held that by virtue of section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in entry 37 reference to the Punjab Excise Act must be taken to be a reference to the relevant provisions of the Central Act. According to him the State could not levy any sales tax under the Act on the preparations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arliament or the State Legislature. The limited meaning sought to be attributed to the word "enactment" cannot be given to it for another reason. It could never be intended that when an Act passed by the Union Parliament repeals a State Act the principle under-lying section 8 should never become applicable. The High Court, in our opinion, was right in saying that there was nothing in section 8 to indicate that the words "former enactment" meant only a Central enactment and not a State enactment and that the courts would not be justified to read in that section words which were not there and to place a narrow and limited construction on the words "former enactment". It has not been disputed on behalf of the appellant that if section 8 is app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
