9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (10) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing the writ petition of the respondent and declaring the amendment of item 30 in Schedule B to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act, invalid. The composite and the then existing State of Punjab was reorganised by the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (Central Act 31 of 1966). The Union Territory of Chandigarh was carved out as one of the States on and from November 1, 1966. Under section 6 of the Act no tax was payable on the sale of goods specified in Schedule B. The State Government could amend this schedule and at the relevant time the power so conferred on the State Government was in the following terms: "The State Government, after giving by notification not less than three months' notice of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court repelled this argument and, in our opinion, rightly. It is plain on the wordings of section 6 of the Act, extracted above, that a notification merely notifying the intention of the State Government to add to or delete from Schedule B any article, by itself, had no force of law until and unless on the expiry of the period of three months a like notification was issued amending the schedule. The erstwhile State Government of Punjab could not issue a second notification in respect of the Union Territory after it ceased to be a part of the State of Punjab. Sales tax could not be charged on pure silken fabrics by the said State Government on October 31, 1966, merely by virtue of the notification dated August 24, 1966. It was, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by the erstwhile State Government could be deemed to be a notification issued by the new Government. The argument thus presented by Mr. Anand must be rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the principle of law enunciated in the decision of this Court in Rattan Lal and Co. and Another v. Assessing Authority, Patiala [1970] 25 S.T.C. 136 at 146 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1742 at 1749, para 12. The principle stated therein is that the new legislature of the new State after the reorganisation of the composite State could amend the existing law retrospectively from a date anterior to the date of reorganisation. Obviously the view expressed in the decision foresaid is so very different that it cannot be of any hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
