9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (9) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate under this Act or any other law for the time being in force. The provisions of this Act relating to taxation on sales or purchases inside the State only at a single point or only at one or more stages apply only to the sales inside the State." On the basis of this provision, the petitioner contended before the Commercial Tax Officer, Haveri, that transactions were not exigible to tax. But it was negatived. Aggrieved by that decision, he came up directly to this Court in Writ Petition No. 916 of 1961, challenging the validity of the levy. By that time, this Court had already pronounced on the scope of the aforementioned section 7 in C. Mallarappa Sons v. The State of Mysore[1962] 13 S.T.C. 400. Therein this Court held that the department was not competent to levy sales tax in respect of purchase transaction. The Legislature amended section 7 of the Act by Act 32 of 1958. By that amendment in the place of the words "apply only to sales" the words "apply to sales or purchases" were submitted. The scope of that amendment again came up for consideration. This Court held that the amendment in question was prospective in character. Thereafter the State Legislature enacted Act 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no dispute that on a true interpretation of section 6 of Act 26 of 1962 it purports to validate even assessments which had been declared to be invalid by any court including this Court. The only question is whether the Legislature had the competence to enact that provision. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that it had no such power but, on the other hand, it was contended by the learned Government Pleader that the Legislature was well within its legislative competence in enacting section 6 of Act 26 of 1962. There is no dispute that the State Legislature has legislative competence to enact laws relating to levy of sales tax. But it was urged that any law enacted by the Legislature in pursuance of its legislative power cannot infringe Article 245 of the Constitution and it was further urged that the provision with which we are concerned in this case is violative of Article 245(1). Article 245(1) says: "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and the Legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State." In view of this provision, the power of the Parliament ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re it could be promulgated. We are unable to agree with this contention. This Ordinance in no way purports to affect the powers of the High Court. It may have affected the rights of a party before the High Court but the powers of the High Court have remained the same. If an Act is passed during the pendency of a case which affects the rights of the parties, it cannot be said that there has been any derogation from the powers of the High Court which endangers the position of that Court which by the Constitution it is designed to fill. This argument, therefore, does not affect the validity of the Ordinance." Dealing with the width of the power of the Legislature to enact a legislation, the Supreme Court in Rai Ramakrishna and Others v. State of BiharA.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1667. observed that the entries in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India conferring legislative power of the Legislature must receive the widest denotation. It further laid down that the legislative power conferred on the appropriate Legislatures to enact law in respect of topics covered by the several entries in the three lists can be exercised both prospectively and retrospectively. Where the Legisla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved party to approach this Court is taken away. The petitioner had successfully approached this Court on the former occasion. If he is unsuccessful on this occasion, it is because the defect in the law has been cured retrospectively and not because either this Court's power is derogated or its discretion interfered with. In support of his contention, Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the assessee, tried to take assistance from certain observations made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 306 of 1963. As seen earlier, in that case, we had come to the conclusion that it is one thing to affect the rights of the parties and wholly a different thing to affect the power of this Court and what is relevant is the power of this Court and not the rights of parties who seek relief from this Court. After saying so, this Court proceeded to consider what would be the legal position on the facts of that case, even if the amendment is held to affect the power of the Court. In that case, the decision of this Court was rendered in a revision petition filed under section 23 of the Act. Hence it was observed that the power exercised by this Court in that case was not a constitutional power but a statu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
