LexHARDEODAS JAGANNATH versus STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c ' . D E F G H HARDEODASJAGANNATH v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. September 27, 1968 [J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, G. K. MITTER, K. S. JIEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act (47 of 1947), ss. 4 and 6-Juris- diction of Central Government to extend State Act to former Indion Princely States--Answers submitted by Central Government to questions by Court-Conclusive evidence. Assam Sales Tax Act (17 of 1947) as amended by Act 6 of 1958 s. 30---Whether properly extended to Shillong Administered Area-Appeal by ass.essee without paying tax or penalty-Prayer for acceptance of security-Power of Appellate Authorit.y to accept security in lieu of cash. By a notification dated April 15, 1948 the Government of India ex- tended the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 to the Administered Area in Shillong under s. 4 of the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947. The instrument of accession by which the administration of the Indian Princely State of Mylliem in the Shillong Administered Area was transferred to the Central Government was accepted by the Governor-General of India on August 17, 1948. Under s. 30 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, as amend- ed by Act 6 of 1958., a dealer may appeal against an order of assessment or penalty. but the appeal shall not be entertained by the appellate autho- rity unless he was satisfied tlrat the amount of tax assessed or penalty levied, if not otherwise directed by him, had been paid. The sales tax authorities assessed the appellant to sales-tax and imposed penalties for various periods. Though some of the assessment periods were before April 1, 1958 when the Amending Act 6 of 1958 came into force, all the orders of assessment and pen.alty were passed after April 1, 1958. The appellant did not pay the tax assessed or the pen.ally but filed petitions along with its appeals praying that it may be alk•wed to furnish security in lieu of payment of cash on account of its fina.ucial condition. The petitions were rejected and the appeals were con;equently dismissed. Writ petitions filed by the appellant in the High Court, to quash the orders of dismissal of the appeals, were also dismissed. In appeal to this Court, it was contended that; (1) After August 15, 1947 the State of Mylliem became an independent State and •ince the Central Government could exercise extra provincial jurisdiction under the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, only if the CentraJ Government exer- cised such jurisdiction under a treaty. agreement, or by other lawful means, the Central Government in the present case, could not exercise such jurisdiction till August 17, 1948 when the instrument of acccs.icn was ac,cepted; and therefore, the notification dated April 15 1948 was not validly issued and hence the Assam sales Tax Act was n~t operative in the Shillong Administered Area; (2) As the Amending Act of 1958 came into force on April 1, 1958 it could not be given retrospective effect so as. !o apply to as~ssm~nt periods anterior to that date; and ( 3) The authonties 'Yere not nght m holdmg that there was no provision in the Act empowenng them to accept security in lieu of cash payment. 262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 2 S.C.R. As the material on the record was not sufficient to enable the Court to determine the question whether the Dominion of India was enti•led to exercise extra provincial jurisdiction over the Shillong Administered Area on April 15, 1948 this Court under s. 6 of the Extra Provincial Jurisdic- tion Ac,, forwarded to the Union Go¥ernment the questions : (a) whether the Dominion of India exercised such jurisdiction. on April 15, 1948, and (b) whether the Dominion of India had such jurisdiction to extend the Assam Sales Tax Act to the Area. After receiving the answers, HELD : ( 1) The answers submitted by the Union Government showed that prior to April 15, 1948, the British Government had exer- cised jurisdiction over the Area under the Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order-in-Council, 1902, as amended by the Order-in-Council of 1937 that on the withdrawal of British rule the jurisdiction continued to be exercised with the consent of the Siem (ruler) of Mylliem State by the Dominion of India, that the jurisdiction was retained thereafter by the instrument of accession signed by the Siem, and that the exercise of the jurisdiction by the British Government and the Dominion of India several Acts were extended to the Shillong Administered
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.