HIRA LAL RATTAN LAL ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 502 · Decided: 03-10-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

$02 
HIRA LAL RATTAN LAL ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
October 3, 1972 
[K. ·s. HEGDE, P. ]AGANMOHAN REDDY, 1. D. DUA AND 
H. R. KHANNA, JJ.J 
B 
U.P. Saks fox Act 1948 11s 11111cmled by the Urtar Pradesh Sale;· Tax 
Act (A111c11dme111 and Validatio11) Act 1970, s. 3·D, e.tp/anatio11 11, vali-
dity of-S. 7 whether i•Oectfre for retrospective operation of exp/anatio11 
ll-Sil1gle p<>illf tc.~ 011 first purchase of split foodgrains wl1etl1er' kvlable 
11111/er 11111<•11decl Act-Explanation II whether an· unJ.awful 11.11rpatlo11 of 
judicial po/11ts-W/letl1er violates Art. 14 or 19( I) (f) and (g) of Con· 
stit11tio11-Ta.r 011 spilt grains ll'hether levlable· without qme11ding notifi. 
'C 
<"11tion 11111/er s. 3-D-Section 3-D ll'hether suffers from excessive cle/ega-
tiou of lt•g;.,·lt11ire polvers. 
Cndcr the U.P; Sale11 Tax Act 1948 as it originally stood· the ~ 
chases of split or processed foodgrai;r,s and <Jal .by dealers were .sought 
to be brought to t:ax l.lnder ·s. 3-D of the princ.ipal Act read )Vith the . 
.notification. i"5t\ed. 
·: lP. a· writ petitioh relating tci the assessment. year 
. 19&6-67 (Tifok Ghanif Pmsan K11111ar v. Safo Ta;.·· Officer, Harl1ra9 25. 
D 
STC 118) . the High Court of Allahab.ad struck down the levy, holding 
that the ·Jal purchased by the. peti.tioner could not be"s')id to bl,. a com-
. moJity. •ssootiall¥ different from .the. !"bar .dd · pt1PCh'.'6;<'d by the dal 
nulls '.Md .a~cordmgly the. purchases effected by the petitioner could· not 
· be . re~arded . -• I.he.· fiist purchas~. ' 'rhereafter the Governm of U.P. 
issued. lhe Uttar. Pradesh Sale Tax (Amendment and Vahdahon) Ord1· 
·nance, 1910.~dding inter alia Explanation to s. 3-D as well as a validating 
.. 'provision v(i. ~· 71io the principal Act. The ordina.~ce was later enacted 
E 
as .the Utt-ar Pradesh Sales Tax Ac! (Amendment and Validation) Act 
1970.. Explanation J( aforesaid provided that split or processed food· 
grains such as in the form of dal shall be deemed to be different from 
unsplit or unprocessed foodgrains and accordingly tax could be levied 
r 
on 
first 
purchases 
of 
split dal. 
Jn support of the writ petition 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed in the High court by the appel-
lant the validity of Explanation II of s. 3·0 as well as s. 7 was challeng· 
.cd and it was contended that the. amendments incorporated were· not 
F · 
effective enough to bring. to tax the first pilrchase .of split or processed 
fooJgraio• and pulses. . The High court rejected these conf.enti®S and 
.dismissed the.writ petition. Therea.f\er these re~nt appeals were.brought 
'vith certificates. 
, 
Dismissing the appeals, 
, HELD : (i) The source of the legislative power IQ· levy. sales of 
G .. 
purchases tax on goods is Enry. 54 .of Li~t II. of the Constitution. It 'is 
well settled that subject to con$titutiona! restrictions a power. to legislate 
includes a power to legislate prospectively as well a• retrospectwc!ly ... .In 
Ch/10t<1hlrai Jethahlrai Patel it was specifically decided by this Court that 
where the legislature can make a valid law. it ·can provide not only for 
the prospecth·c operation of the material provisions of the said law but 
it cJn also provide for the restrospective OJ?"ration of the said provisions. 
The contention that no fre·h levy can be imposed by retrospective legis-
H 
lat ion must therefore be rejected. [509 EJ 
Tire l'nion of I11dic. ''- Madan GoN1 Kamra, (1954) 3 S.C.R. 
541, 
,,f.P. S1111d(1rarc11J1icr & Co. v. The SMte of .4ndhra Prade~li ancll anr: 
.· . 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
HJRA LAL v. U.P. STATE (Hegde, J.) 
503 
[1958J S.C.R. 1422, I. K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State 'of Uttar Pradesh 
and anr. 12, S.T.C. 429, Chho;abhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. v. The 
Union of India and anr.; [1962J Supp. 2 S.C.R. p. 1 and Sri Ramkrisl1r1a 
& Ors. v. The State of Bihar, [1964] 1 S.C.R. 897, applied. 
(ii) It is open to the legislature to define the nature of the goods, the sale 
or purchase of which should be brought to ta.x. 
Legislature was not 
incompetent to separate the processed or split pulses from the unsplit ol' 
unprocessed pulses and treat the two as separate and independent goods. 
There was no basis for the contention that the legislature cannot for the 
purpose of tax under the Act separate the split or processed from the 
unspl~t or unprocessed. [510 A-DJ 
Jaga1111ath and Ors. v. Union o/ lnclia, [1962J 2 S.C.R. 118, referred to. 
(iii) There was no

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