9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (7) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from including such a turnover as above in the assessable turnover and bring it to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner's main grievance is that the aforesaid turnover is not assessable to Central sales tax and, therefore, the attempt to bring it to tax as if it is includible in the assessable turnover is an act without jurisdiction and, therefore, a writ of prohibition should issue even at the threshold. In some cases writs of mandamus are asked for, but in principle they are seeking for similar reliefs. Whilst the case of the petitioner is that there is total lack of jurisdiction in the respondent to assess the turnover in question concerning inter-State sales of jaggery and/or gur, it is contended on behalf of the Government that by virtue of Madras Act 2 of 1968 such a power is available, even though the sales are exempt from tax under the Central Sales Tax Act by virtue of an exemption granted by the State Government as delegate of Parliament and as the appropriate authority to grant such exemptions under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Broadly, the statutory provisions with which we are co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red on them under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, issued the following Notification G. 0. No. 4586, Revenue, dated 12th December, 1957: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956), the Governor of Madras hereby directs that with effect on and from 13th December, 1957, no tax under the said Act shall be payable by any dealer having his place of business in the State of Madras in respect of the sales by him to registered dealers from any such place of business of the goods specified below in the course of inter-State trade or commerce: (i) all varieties of cloth except cloth made of pure silk or staple fibre; (ii) sugar; (iii) cigars and cheroots sold at less than twelve naye paise per cigar or cheroot, and bidis, snuff, chewing tobacco or any other product manufactured from tobacco; and (iv) raw tobacco, whether cured or uncured." This was later on amended on 23rd April, 1958. The relevant portion of the amendment, in so far as we are concerned, is with reference to item (ii) in the above notification. Under the amended notification dated 23rd April, 1958, the item "suga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is contended that by reason of Madras Act 2 of 1968 the exemption which was no doubt available to a dealer in the matter of payment of Central sales tax over inter-State sales of jaggery and gur should be deemed to have been withdrawn, as at or about that time the levy of Central sales tax was to a great extent dependent upon the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and the imposition of Central sales tax over inter-State sales was largely governed by the incidence of tax over such commodities under the local Act. This argument however misses the main question. The respective fields of activity of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, are totally different and distinct. Under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act a parliamentary delegate is created for purposes of granting certain exemptions. If a dealer, therefore, had inter-State sales of jaggery and gur during the period when the exemption granted under a notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act was in force, then he is, as a matter of course, automatically entitled to such an exemption unless the statutory authority functioning under section 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purported extraneous influence of an Act of another totally different legislative body which has nothing to do with the imposition of Central sales tax or granting of exemptions from payment of such tax over inter-State sales regarding certain specified commodities. As already stated, the delegated authority under section 8(5) has a particular function to perform and the local legislature and its delegate in turn have an altogether different legislative function which has no impact or impingement upon the legislative functions of either the Parliament or its delegate under that Act. In their respective fields, their laws, rules and notifications shall prevail and operate and are paramount. Once a notification has been made by the appropriate authority under section 8(5), it can never become inoperative through obsolescence or by an attempted disturbance of such state of affairs by a totally unconnected and different legislative body. In this view I am unable to agree with the learned Government Pleader that there was a reason behind the grant of exemption from Central sales tax when the notification dated 23rd April, 1958, was passed and that should be deemed to have been taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isting law should have the power to do so. It cannot be said that the Madras Legislature had the power to cancel a notification issued by the delegate of Parliament functioning under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. It is accepted law that all Acts and Rules and notifications having the force of law do not age out or become obsolete by non-user or non-adoption. At page 404 of Craies on Statute Law, Sixth Edition, it is said: "Every statute for which no time is limited is called a perpetual Act and continues in force until it is repealed." It therefore follows that the notification under section 8(5) continued to be good law till 20th March, 1969. The argument that such a notification or benefit should be deemed to have been impliedly repealed is fallacious, because both the exemption granted under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act and the amendment as made under Madras Act 2 of 1968 can function without one having an impact on the other. In such circumstances, the doctrine of implied repeal is completely out of question. Even in cases where the competent legislative authority passes a later enactment or a statutory rule, it cannot be said that the earlier enac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
