LexJAWAHARMAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JAWAHARMAL
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
September 22, 1965
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO,
M. HillAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.]
A
B
Raja,s,than Passengers and Goods Taxation (Amendment and Vali-
dation.) Act 1964 (22 of 1964), ss. 2
and 4--Act validating
State
Finance Acts of 1961 and 1962-Whether legislature can itself validate
defect caused by non-observance of Art. 255 of the Constitu1ion---Retros-
('ective taxation whether valid an(i reasonable.
C
The Rajasthan State Legislature passed Act 18 of 1959 to levy taX
on passengers and goods carried in motor vehicles.
For the pu.rpose of
the tax roads were divided into two categories i.e. those which were
asphalted etc .. and those which were not. ln respect of goods carried on
the former category of roads the State Government was authorised by .s. 3
of the Act to levy tax at a maximum of tth of the value of the fares and
freights; in respect of goods carried on the second category of roaci.9'
the maximum \Vas 1/ 12th. By a notification under the Act the maximum
rates were levied with effect from May 1, 1959.
The said s. 3 was
amended by the Finance Acts of 1961 and 1962 to raise the maximum
rates Ieviable under that section and the relevant notifications actually
levied the sam<:.
The Acts of 1961 and 1962 however suffered from
the infirmity that the assent of the President had not been obtainet;f in
respect of them as required by Art. 255 of the Constitution.
To cure
the defect Ordinance No. 4 of 1964 was issued.
The Ordinance was
replaced on September 9, 1964 by Act 22 of 1964 for wbich the asoent
of the President was duly obtained.
Section 2 of the Act of 1964
retrospectively re·-enacted the amendments to s. 3 of the principaJ Act
made by the Acts of 1961 and 1962.
Section 4 of the Act validated
all the collections and levies under the earlier Acts and also purported
to cure tlie infirmity in the said earlier Act arising from non-compliance
with Art. 255.
The petitioner who was asked to pay tax under the
Ordinance of 1964 challenged the validity of the said Ordinance as well
as the. Act of 1964 in petitions under Art 32 of the Constitution of
India.
It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that ss. 2 and 4 of the
impugned Act purported to validate the earlier invalid Finance Act of
1961 and 1964.
It was urged that the failure Qf the legislature to com-
ply with the provisions of Art. 255 rendered the said Acts void ab initio
and as such they could not be validated by sub<.>equent legislation. It was
further urged that the said earlier Acts had been held invalid by the
Rajasthan High Court in the case of Vijai Singh and it would be incom-
petent to the State Legislature to validate the said Acts in spite of the
decision of a court ~competent jurisdiction.
HELD : (i) It was factually not correct to say that the Acts of
1961 and 1962 had been struck down as void ab initio by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
The High Court in Vijai Singh's case had on
the other hand though H unnecessary to pronounce its coo9idered opinion
on that as~ect of the matter.
Act 22 of 1964 was passed on September
9, 1964 while the judgment of the High' Court was delivered in Novem-
D
E
F
G
H
-
...
1
-
JAWAHARMAL v. STATE (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
891
A ber 1%4, and so at the time when the Act was passed the earlier Finance
Acts had not been struck down at all. [899 B-E]
B
c
D
E
F
0
H
Vijai Singh and Another v. Deputy Co1nmissioner, Excise & Tax:z-
tlon (Appeals) Aimer and Kotah Divisions, Jaipur & Ors. I.L.R. (1960)
15 Raj. 285, referred to,
(ii) An Act which suffers from the infirmity that it does not comply
with the requirements of Art. 255 can be validated by subsequent legis-
lation.
Article 2)5 itself provides- that no Act of the Legislature or a
State and no provision in any such Act shall be invalid by reason only
that son1e recommendation or previous sanction required by the, Consti-
tuuon was not given, if assent to the Act wa9 given by the President
later. If an Act is passed without obtaining the previous assent of the
President it does not become void but remains unenforceable till such
~_ssent is obtained.
The said infirmity is cured by subsequent assent and
the law becomes enforceable.
The legislature
can also in a suitable
case adopt the cours-e of passing a subsequent law re-introducing the pr~
v1s1uns of the earlier law which had not received the assenExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.