LexBHAIYALAL SHUKLA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
257
BHAIYALAL SHUKLA
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH,
J.C. SHAH and J. R. MumrnLKAR, JJ.)
Sales Tax-0. P. and Berar Act .extended to Vindhya
Pradesh-Validity-0. P. & Berar Sales Tax Act, 194'1 (21 of
1947), a1 extended to Vindhya Pradesh-Par! 0 States (Laws)
Act, 1950, s. 2-Government of Part 0 States Act ( 49 of 1951),
ss. 21, 22--Part 0 State8 (Miscellaneous Law•) Repealing Aet
(66 of 1951)-Vindhya Pradesh Law8 (Validating) Act (6 of
1952), s. 7-Vindhya Pradesh Sales Tax Ordinance (2 of 1949)
-ConBtitution of India Art. 14.
The appellant was doing business of construction as
contractor under Public Works Department in Vindhya
Pradesh, now Madhya Pradesh. He challenged the levy of
Sales Tax on building materials cupplied by him for the year
1953-54 to 1958-59. The contention of the Petitioner was that
the tax was not leviable in view of the decision of the Supreme
Court in Gannon Dunkerley's case and Pandit Banarsi Das's
ca8e. The respondents claimed that the tax was leviable because
the case fell within the derision in Mithan Lal's case. The Raj-
pramukh of the United S'tate of Vindhya Pradesh promulgated
the Vindhya Pradesh Sales Tax Ordinance 2 of 1949. On
Vindhya Pradesh becoming Part C State of India the said
Ordinance of Rajpramukh was applied to the whole of it with
effect from April 1, 1950, by notification No. 7 of March 28,
1951.
Under s. 2 of the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950,. by
notification No. S . .R.O. 6 datrd December 29, 1950, the
Central Provinces & Berar Sales Tax Act 1947, was extended
to Vindhya Pradesh. The notification also added s. 29 to the
Madhya Pradeah Act so extended, by which ordinance 2 of
1949 was repealed. By reason of the decision of this Coll!'! in
the Delhi Laws Act case the addition of s. 29 was unconsti-
tutional. Parliament thon enacted the Part C States (Miac.
Laws) Repealing Act (60 of 1951).
By s. 2 of the Act the
Vindhya Pradesh Sales Tax Ordinance, 1949, was deemed to
have been repealed from December 29, 1950. The Vindhya
Pradesh Laws (Validity) Art, 1952, also provioed and declared
that Central Provinces & Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, which
was extended to Vindhya Pradesh under s. 2 of the Part C
States Laws Act, 1950, has been and shall be deemed to be
in force in Vindhya Pradesh from April 1, 1951. The said
C. P. & Berar Sales
1~a:;
Act drfined contract, goods, sales
etc. and by these definition the materials used or supplied by
1111
Dtter•m 11.
1981
Buiµ/a/ Shwk/a
Y.
Stak of
M a./ltya ProJ11h
258 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1982) StTPP.
a building contractor in the conJtructions etc. were made
liable to Sales Tax in accordance with the schedule r.atcs.
The question is, whether C. P. & Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947,
can be said to have been extended. for the !"int time by the
Vindhya Pradesh lagL,lature in 1952, when it pasoed
the
Vindhya PradCJh Laws (Validating) Act, 1952 to the exclusion
of the order contained in the notification'No. S.R.O. 6 or
whether the Act continued to be in force in Vindhya Pradesh
even before and all that the Vindhya Pradesh Act did as to
remove any doubts about its validity.
The rival cont,ntions of the appellant and the rcspon.
dents are reduced to the proposition that if the State Legisla·
ture of Vindhva Pradesh extended the Central Province and
Berar Sales Tax Act, the extended Act would suffer from
di<ability pointed out in Ga'"''"' DunTc.rley'• caae, but If the
said Act was extended hy the notification under Part C States
(Laws) Act, 1950, then it must be treated as incorporated in
the Act and to have the authQfitv of Parliament wh!ch, in
relation to Part C States,
~ad no limitation whatever.
Hdd, that !he extended law in the C. P. & Berar Sales
Tax Act, 1947, did not depend on the repeal of the earlier law
for its validity. It would have been operative, even if the
('arlicr 1aw was not repealed, but_ the earlier law wu in f'act
repealed from December 29, 1950, and no question of conflict
between the new and the old law ever arose.
Hild, further, that the Vindhya Pradesh Amending Act
made only verbal changes. but did not alter the structure of
the tax. No doubt, that Act contained· certain provisionJ
under which sales of build in it materialo are taxable, and if the
authority to tllx the. so·called sales emanated from a State
Legi•lature, then the law would fail. The law wa• first eExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.