9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed. - Writ Petition No. 6046 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 29-4-2009 - ANIL R. DAVE C.J. AND RAMESH RANGANATHAN , JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by RAMESH RANGANATHAN J. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the impugned notice issued by the second respondent dated March 20, 2009 is void ab initio, non est, without authority of law, illegal and invalid. The petitioner, carrying on business of manufacture and sale of cigarettes, is registered under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. They were also registered as a tobacconist, under the A.P. Tax on Luxuries in Hotels and Lodging Houses Act, 1987 (hereinafter called, Luxury Tax Act ), from August, 1996. The Luxury Tax Act was amended on August 1, 1996 and its scope was enlarged to include levy of luxury tax on supply of tobacco and tobacco products. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 16909 of 1996 before this court challenging the vires of the said Act. Though the writ petition was admitted, no interim order was granted in the petitioner's favour pending disposal of the writ petition. The second respondent passed order dated March 31, 1998 for the assessment year 1996-97, under the Luxury Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the competent authority, that the Supreme Court had held that no action on the return, for recovery of the amounts due, should be taken during the pendency of the appeals and that, in the event of the challenge by the dealers to the validity of the Act failing, the dealers would be liable for payment of tax in accordance with the assessments made on the basis of the returns so filed. According to the second respondent, the interim order of the Supreme Court would apply only for recovery of tax and not for levy of tax, that the revision order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on July 10, 2000, on the basis of the incriminating material found with the petitioner for the assessment year 1996-97, was valid and justified since the Supreme Court had not delivered its judgment as on that date. The second respondent would give a detailed narration of the facts leading to the passing of the order in revision by the Deputy Commissioner and the dismissal of the appeal, preferred by the petitioner, by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. Sri C.R. Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, as the Luxury Tax Act itself had been declared ultra vires and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f not made in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity, and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders. This is equally true even where the brand of invalidity is plainly visible for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the court (Wade and Forsyth: Administrative Law, Seventh Edn., at pages 341-342). Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council [1956] AC 736. No individual or authority can ignore the order assuming authority upon itself to decide that the order is coram non judice. A quasi-judicial order, not invalid on its face, must be given effect to entailing all consequences, till it is declared void in a duly constituted judicial proceedings. Prakash Narain Sharma v. Burmah Shell Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [2002] 7 SCC 46. If an act is void or ultra vires it is enough for the court to declare it so and it collapses automatically. It need not be set aside. The aggrieved party can s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a revisional order, passed under an Act which is declared unconstitutional, must be examined. Decisions of courts do not amend or add to a statute. They merely interpret the law and declare whether it is valid or not and the result of a declaration that it is not valid is that no effect can be given to it in a court of law Behram Khurshid AIR 1955 SC 123. When a statute is adjudged to be unconstitutional, it is as if it had never, at any time, possessed legal force. A judicial declaration of the unconstitutionality of a statute has the effect of ignoring or disregarding it so far as the determination of the rights of private parties is concerned. The court does not annul or repeal the statute if it finds it in conflict with the Constitution. It simply refuses to recognize it, and determines the rights of the parties just as if such statute had no application Deep Chand AIR 1959 SC 648. As the Luxury Tax Act, on its being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. State of U.P. [2005] 139 STC 537; [2005] 2 SCC 515, must be held as never to have possessed any legal force, the revisional order passed by the Deputy Commissioner thereunder must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
