Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, S. C. Aggarwal and M. K. Ramamurthi, for the Petitioner.
was made, the Act was extended but was number in force in Vindhya Pradesh.
52 Econ. ,
There is a difference between the extension of a law subject to its being brought into force latter and its companying into force on a later date.
Sen, B. K. B. Naidu and I. N. Shroff, for the Respondents.
The Vindhya Pradesh Act 6 of 1952 cannot, therefore, be said to have enacted for the first time that the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act shall companye into force from April 1, 1951 in Vindhya Pradesh.
By the same Notification, a new section was added to the Madhya Pradesh Act, which read as follows Repeal and Saving The Vindhya Pradesh Sales Tax Ordinance 2 of 1949 is here by repealed, provided that and here follow certain provisions saving the previous operation of the Ordinance.
6 had substituted for sub s. 3 of s. 1 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, the following It shall companye into force on such date as may be numberified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette.
52 Econ.
Section 7 of Act 6 of 1952 repealed only the laws in force prior to the date on which the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act was brought into force.
For the remaining two years, proceedings are pending for assessment of the tax.
52/ECON.
December 21.
It speaks of laws in force in Vindhya Pradesh immediately before April 1, 1951, and the law which was in force immediately before that date was number the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act which had number been brought into force, but might be Ordinance 2 of 1949, if it had number been successfully repealed earlier.
7 of March 28, 1950 by the Chief Commissioner, Vindhya Pradesh, acting under s. 1 2 of the ordinance.
In view of the decision of this Court in the Delhi Laws Act case 1 the Part C States Miscellaneous Law Repealing Act, 1951 66 of 1951 was enacted by Parliament on October 31, 1951.
It only declared what was a legal fact even without this declaration.
dated March 20, 1950 from April 1, 1951.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. These six petitions under Art.
The section, therefore, refers to Ordinance 2 of 1949, which would be in force immediately before April 1, 1951, if number successfully repealed, but number to the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act which was only extended before that date but had number been brought into force.
On the inauguration of the present Constitution of India, Vindhya Pradesh became, at first, a part B State but later by the Constitution Amendment of the First and Fourth Schedules Order, 1950, it was transferred from Part B to Part C of the Constitution.
The former Act was extended on December 29, 1950, but was number brought into force till April 1, 1951, and the section speaks of laws in force.
The respondents in the case are the State of Madhya Pradesh, which stands substituted for the State of Vindhya Pradesh, and diverse officers companynected with the assessment and levy of the tax.
On March 20, 1951, the Central Government issued Notification No.
April 1, 1951, from which date it was brought into force in Vindhya Pradesh by Notification No.
110 to 115 of 1960.
By the Covenant which was entered into by them at that time, it was provided that until a Constitution for the United State would vest in the Rajpramukh, and he was authorised to make and promulgate Ordinances for the peace and good government of the United State of any part thereof, and any Ordinance made by him had the force of an Act passed by the legislature of the United State.
The respondents, however, claim that the tax is leviable, because the case falls within the decision of this Court reported in Mithan Lal v. The State of Delhi 3 .
32 of the Constitution have been filed by one Bhaiyalal Shukla, who was doing business of companystruction of buildings, roads, bridges etc.
By these petitions, he challenges the levy of sales tax on building materials supplied by him in the companystruction of buildings, roads and bridges for the years, 1953 54 to 1958 59.
1,840 5 0 has already been charged and paid.
The Rajpramukh, in exercise of his powers drawn from the Covenant, promulgated the Vindhya Pradesh Sales Tax Ordinance 2 of 1949 for the levy of a tax on the sale of goods in Vindhya Pradesh.
For the remaining years except the last two, proceedings for assessment have been companypleted, but the amounts have number been paid.
In the Schedule, the Vindhya Pradesh Sales Tax Ordinance, 1949 2 of 1949 was repealed from December 29, 1950.
The companytention of the petitioner is that the tax is number leviable in view of the decisions of this Court in two cases reported in The State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Madras Ltd. 1 and Pandit Banarsidas v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2 .
For the first year in question, sales tax amounting to Rs.
The ordinance of the Rajpramukh was applied to the whole of Vindhya Pradesh with effect from April 1, 1950 by Notification No.
The United State of Vindhya Pradesh was formed by the Rulers of the States in Baghelkhand and Bundhelkhand, who agreed to unite into a companymon State, with the Maharaja of Rewa as the Rajpramukh.
He seeks refund of this amount.
By s. 2 of that Act, laws described in Column 2 of its Schedule were repealed or were deemed to have been repealed with effect from the dates specified in the companyresponding entry in companyumn 3 of that Schedule.
The Notification, S. R. O. No.
dated March 20, 1951.
Till the Notification No.
To remove these doubts, the Vindhya Pradesh Laws Validating Act, 1952, enacted with the assent of the President, declared by s. 2 already quoted that the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act had been and shall be deemed to be in force in Vindhya Pradesh from April 1, 1951.
