B. SHAMA RAO versus THE UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 650 · Decided: 20-02-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B. SHAMA RAO 
v. 
THE UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICllDUlY 
February 20, 1967 
[K. SuBBA R.Ao, C.J., J. C. SHAH, J. M. SHELAT, V. Bl:!AllGAVA 
I 
AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J 
Madras General Sales Tax Act (I of 1959)-Extendd to Pond/cherry 
by s. 2(1) of Pondicherry Gmera/ Sales. Tax Act (IO of 196S)-Dlue of 
commencemmt of Pondicherry Act to be ~d 
under s. 1(21 6y P.ondl-
cherry Govt.-Madras ,(ct Amended-Notification of PondU:lierry Govt. 
c 
ezlending amend~d Madras Act to Pondicherry-lf ezcaslve dele6allon. 
The IegiSJative assembly for the Union Territory of Pondichcrry passed 
the Pondichcrry General Sales Tax Act (10 of 1965) which was publish-
ed on Jllne 30, 1965. 
Section 1(2.) of the Act provided, r}iat it would 
como into force on such date as the Pondicherry Government may, by 
notification, appoint and s 2( 1) provided that the Madras General Sales 
Tax Act, 1959, as in force in the State of Madras immediately before 
D 
the Commencement of the Pondicherry Ai:t, shall be extended to Pondi-
cht!rry subj..'.:ct to certain modifications, one of which related to the consti. 
tution of the Appellate Tribunal. 1be Act aho enacted a Scheclulc, giving 
the description of goods, the point of levy and the rates of tax. 
The 
Pondicberry Government issued a notification on March 1, 1966, appoint· 
ing April I. 1966 as the dale of commencement. Prior to the issue of the 
uolification, the Madras legislature had amended 
the Madras Act 
and 
., 
consequently it was the Madras Act as amended 
up to April 
I, 1966 
• 
which was brought into force in Pondicherry. 
When the Act had come into force. the petitioner was served with a 
notice to register himself as a dealer and he thereupon filed a writ petition 
challenging the validity of the Act. 
After the petition was filed, the Pondicherry Legislature passed 
the 
F 
Pondicherry General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 13 of 1966. whereby 
s. 1 (2) of the principal Ac1 was amended 10 read that the latter Act "shall 
come into force on the 1st day of April 1966", it was also provided that 
all taxes levied or oollected and all proceedings 
taken and things done 
were to be deemed valid as if the pnncipal Act as amended had been in 
for~ at all material tim.,., 
HELD: (per Subba Rao, C.J., Shelat and Miller 11.) : 
G 
The Act of 1965 was void and still-born and could not be revived by 
the Amendment Act of 1966. 
The Pondicherry Legislature not only adopted the Madras Act as it 
ctood al the date when it passed the principal Act. but in effect also enact-
ed that if the Madras legislature were to amend its Act prior to the notifi-
cation of its extension to Pondicberry, it would be the amended Act that 
would apply. 
The Legislature at that stage could not anticipate that the 
Madras Act "'ouJd not be amended nor could it predicate what amend-
ments \\·ould he C<Jrricd out or whether they would 
he of a sweeping 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
. 
SHAMA RAO V. PONDICHERRY (She/at, /.) 
651 
character or w'bether they would be suitable in Pon di cherry. 
The result 
waa that the Pondieherry Legislature accepted the amended Act though 
'it was not and could not be aware what the provisions of the amended 
Act would. be. There was, in these circumstances, a total surrender in the 
matter of sales tax legislation by the Pondicherry Assembly in favoUT of 
the Madras Legislature. [660 D-0] 
The J?rincipal Act was not saved for the. reason that it contained cer-
tain pl'OVlsions relating to the Appellate Tribunal and a Schedule indepen-
dent of the Madras Act. The core of a taxing statute is the charging 
.section and the provisions relating to the levy of such tax and defining the 
persons who are liable to pay the tax. If that core disappears, the remain-
mg provisions have no efficacy. [660 H] 
/11 re Delhi Laws Act, 1912, etc. [1951] S.C.R 747, explained and 
distinguished. 
Raj Narain Singh v. The Chairman, Patna Administration Committee 
& Anr. [1955] 1 S.C.R. 290; lotindranath Gupta v. State of U.P. (1949-
501 F.C.R. 595; Empress v. Burah 5 I.A. 177; 
The Referendum Case, 
[1919 AC. 935; Hodge v. The Queen, 9 App. Cases 177, referred to. 
The Amendment Act was passed on the footing that there was in 
existence a valid Act; it was and was intended to be an amendment of 
the principal Act. It could not be construed as an independent legisla-
tion, and therefore it could not be said that the Pondicherry Legislature 
r.,..,,,acted the principal Act extending the Madras Act as amended up to 
Apri

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.