COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. versus M/S. UPPER DOAB SUGAR MILLS LTD.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 457 · Decided: 15-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

--
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. 
A 
v. 
M/S. UPPER DOAB SUGAR MILLS LTD. 
MARCH 15, 2000 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
U.P.. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1995/U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 : 
S.39(2) & (3)/ss.3-A, 4 and 22-Applicationsfor review/rectification-
Orders-Limitation-Alcohol-Rectified spirit and denatured spirit-Turno-
c 
ver held by Tribunal not taxable-Turnover made taxable by Amendment Act-
Provision.for review and rectification of orders inconsistent with amended 
provisions-High Court holding that orders for review to be passed within the 
time prescribed under s.39(3)-Held, no time limit has been fixed to dispose of 
application for review-Specific period mentioned in s.39(3) is for purposes of 
rectification-Validating Act. 
D 
Validating Act-Held, a validating Act can render ineffective judgments 
and orders of a competent court or authority provided it by retrospective 
legislation removes the cause of invalidity or basis which led to the judgments. 
The turnover of rectified spirit and denatured spirit in respect of 
E 
', 
assessment years 1974-75to1976-77and1978-79to1983-84, was held to be 
'. 
non-taxable under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 by the Trade Tax Tribunal. 
Sections 3-A and 4 of the Act were amended by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amend-
ment) Act, 1995, making provisions to remove certain defects pointed out 
by the Tribunal or other authorities, and the turnover of alcohol was made 
F 
....... 
taxable. Section 39 of the Amendment Act validated the proceedings in 
respect of assessment, levy or collection of any tax or the order passed 
imposing any penalty or making any demand which was consistent with the 
amended provisions of the Principal Act and provided for review and 
rectification of the order which was inconsistent with the Principal Act; as 
amended by the Amendment Act. Consequently, Revenue tiled review 
G 
applications before the Tribunal, which allowed the same. But, the High 
r 
Court, in revision set aside the orders of the Tribunal holding the same to 
~ 
have been passed beyond the time prescribed under s.39 of the Amendment 
Act. The High Court was of the opinion that, in view of provisions of s.39 of 
the Amendment Act and s.22 of the Principal Act, the applications were to 
H 
457 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
be filed by 30;9.1995 and orders of review or rectification were to be made 
within the time prescribed under s.39(3) of the Amendment Act. Aggrieved, 
Revenue filed the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. No time limit has been fixed to dispose of an application 
c 
for review as provided under Section 39(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax (Amend-
ment) Act, 1995 but a specific date has been prescribed therein within 
which the application has to be made; whereas in section 39(3), specific 
period is mentioned for purposes of rectification. Section 22 of the U.P. 
Sales Tax Act, 1948 provides for rectification of mistakes; whereas Section 
39(2) of the Amendment Act enables the Authority, Tribunal or the Court 
to review, as may be necessary to give effect to the provisio~s of the 
. Principal Act; the requirement being that the application for review was to 
be made before September 30, 1995. [463-D] 
D 
1.2. The scope of rectification is different from the scope of review 
E 
F 
though sometimes they may overlap. From the scheme of the Amendment 
Act, it is clear that both the powers of review and rectification were 
conferr~d upon different authorities to modify the earlier order to give 
necessary effect to the provisions of the Principal Act as amended _by the 
Amendment Act. When two specific and independent powers have been 
conferred upon the authorities, both the powers can be exercised alterna-
tively. The scheme of the Amendment Act is that an application will have to 
be made to an authority within the specified date for review of the assess-
ment order or such other order, as the case may be, for varying the same to 
bring it in terms with the Amendment Act while the period ofmaking the 
order pursuant to rectification is coalesced with Section 39 of the Amend-
ment Act imposing certain limitations of time. Those limitations cannot be 
- read into sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Amendment Act. [ 463-E-H] 
2. A validating Act can render ineffective judgments and orders of a 
competent court or an authority, provided, by retrospective legislation, it 
G 
removes the cause of invalidity or the basis

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