9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... new of the said rescinding G.O. only in the second week of July when a copy of the same was communicated by the Andhra Pradesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry to its members. In the assessment for the relevant year, the petitioners claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 10,60,496.00 and Rs. 16,56,083 respectively, representing the turnover of inter-State sales of hank yarn during the period 19th April, 1971, to 30th June, 1971, but the department refused the said exemption with reference to the said G.O. Ms. No. 437. Hence the writ petition. The relief claimed by the petitioners is for a declaration that the said G.O. Ms. No. 437 dated 18th May, 1971, comes into force only on and from the date of its publication in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, i.e., 1st July, 1971, and, consequently, to restrain the respondents from levying or collecting the Central sales tax on the sales of hank yarn for the period between 19th April, 1971, and 30th June, 1971. Sri P. Venkatarama Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that under section 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, an exemption can be granted by the State Government by a notification published in the And ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the notification, including conditions as to licences and licence fees. " Since the Act itself specifically provides for a notification granting exemption to be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, the learned Government Pleader is right in submitting that there can be no controversy about the necessity of the publication of a notification issued under section 9 of the Act. The only question therefore that arises for our consideration is whether such a notification or notification rescinding an earlier notification can be given retrospective effect. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon two decisions of this court reported in R. Srihari Naidu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[1969] 1 An. W.R. 181. and R. Narayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1969] 1 An. W.R. 77., besides the decision of the Supreme Court in Incometax Officer, Alleppey v. M.C. Ponnoose[1970] 75 I.T.R. 174 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 385. Now, for an effective administration of law, it is essential to observe the rule that ignorance of law is no excuse. But before the knowledge of law is attributed to every member of the public, the law must be published or promulgated for general information. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "The extent of the powers of the legislature and of the delegate of authority are not co-extensive or similar. In construing the rules made or notifications issued in exercise of the powers vested in the executive authority, the ordinary rule of construction is that effect must be given to them from the date of their promulgation." We may now consider the other decision reported in R. Narayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1969] 1 An. W.R. 77., which was rendered by one of us sitting single (Chinnappa Reddy, J.). After referring to the observations of Bose, J., in Harla v. State of RajasthanA.I.R. 1951 S.C. 467., it was observed that: "The idea that a person may be governed by a law that cannot be known by him because it is not published or promulgated is revolting to judicial conscience and civilised thought. It has with it a strong odour or totalitarianism and of the gestapo. It is repugnant to the principles of justice, freedom, equality and fraternity, cherished by Ball lovers of democracy and enshrined in our Constitution." In conclusion, it was stated that: "Subordinate legislation to take effect must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner, whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision was however referred to in the subsequent Bench decision in R. Srihari Naidu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[1969] 1 An. W.R 181. A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 385. , and it was held that the said case cannot be relied upon as laying down the proposition that when a legislature confers power to make a rule or notification it has by the very use of the words "as if enacted in the Act" delegated one of its sovereign legislative functions, namely, to enact a statute, with retrospective effect. It was also held that there was no discussion in the said case as to the principle upon which the conclusion was based. In view of the principle repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court and by this Court that unless empowered expressly or by necessary implication a delegate cannot make a rule or issue a notification with retrospective effect, we are not prepared to treat the decision in P. Basavayya Sons v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1961] 12 S.T.C. 634., as laying down a contrary principle. We may also refer in this connection to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Sales Tax Officer v. Timber and Fuel Corporation(4) [1973] 31 S.T.C. 585 (S.C.)., which has been cited by the learned Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
