M. PENTIAH AND OTHERS versus MUDDALA VEERAMALLAPPA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 07-11-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 13 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
295 
Laws Order, 1951, only applied to all sales of goods 
r96o 
delivered and consumed in the State of first destina-
1 
c 
t. 
If th 
d 
d l' 
d r 
. 
. 
ndian 
opper 
ion. 
e goo s were e !Vere lOr consumpt10n, It Corporation Lit>. 
is immaterial whether they were in fact conilFmed in 
v. 
the State where they were delivered.· The power of 
The state of 
the State to levy sales tax relying upon the territorial Bihar & Others 
nexus between tbe taxing power of the State and the 
sale, is impaired for reasons already set out to the 
extent to which it is restricted by the incorporation of 
Art. 286(l)(a)(i) and the Explanation thereto, in that 
Act. Therefore, sales effected on or after J a.nuary 26, 
1950, where goods a.re as a direct result of the sale 
delivered in another State for consumption in that 
other State, are not liable to be taxed. 
The directions issued by the High Court will there-
fore be modified as follows: 
The order of the Superintendent of Taxes is set 
a.side. 
He is directed to grant refund of tax pa.id in 
the light of this judgment. The appellant will be 
entitled to exemption from payment of tax if the 
goods are, a.s a direct result of the sale, delivered in 
another State for the purpose of consumption in that 
State. 
Appeal dismissed subject to mod~fication. 
M. PENTIAH AND OTHERS 
v. 
MUDDALA VEERAMALLAPPA AND OTHERS. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. SuBBA RAO, K. N. W ANCHOO and 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Municipality-Committee constituted under old Act continued 
by repealing Act-Term of office-Power-If can effect sale of 
municipal land -
Interpretation of statute -
Power of Court-
H yderabad District Municipalities .Act, r956. (H yd. XV I II of 
1956), SS. I6, I7, I8, 20, 32, 34, 35, 76, 77 and 320. 
The respondents were the elected members of the Vicarabad 
Shah ]. 
November 7. 
111'. Pentiah 
& Others 
v. 
Muddala 
Veeramallappa 
&· Others 
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
Municipal Committee, constituted in 1953, under the Hydera-
bad Municipal and Town Committees Act, l95L That Act was 
repealed bys. 320 of the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act, 
1956, which came into force in 1956. That section provided 
that the committee constituted under the repealed enaclment 
was to be deemed to have been constituted under the Act and 
the members thereof should hold office till the first meeting of 
the committee was called under s. 35 of the Act. No election 
was held under the new Act; the old committee, which continu-
ed to function, after duly passing a resolution ahd obtaining the 
necessary sanction from the Government, sold certain municipal 
lands to third parties. The appellants, who were rate-payers of 
the said Municipality, moved the High Court for the issue of a 
writ of quo warranto challenging the said sales under Art. 226 of 
the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition. The 
contention of the appellants in this Court was that the members 
of the said committee were functus officio on expiry of three 
years from the commencement of the Act for s. 34 of the Act 
prescribed a term of three years and s. 320 of the Act did not 
provide any definite term for them. 
But if s. 34 was held to be 
inapplicable, neither could the first general election under the 
Act, for which s. 16 of the Act was the only provision, be held, 
nor could the first meeting of the committee called under s. 35 
of the Act and the result would be that the old committee would 
continue indefinitely. 
Held, that the contention must be negatived. 
The word ' committee' in s. 320 of the Hyderabad District 
Municipalities Act, 1956, did not mean a committee elected 
under the Act and the term of three years prescribed by s. 34 of 
the Act could not, therefore, apply to it. 
Construed in the light of well-recognised principles of 
interpretation of statutes and the scheme as envisaged by 
ss. 16, 17; 18, 20, 32, 34, and 320 of the Act, s. 320 of the Act 
could be no more than a transitory provision and it would be 
unreasonable to suggest that the Legislature which repealed 
the earlier Act with the express intention of constituting com-
mittees on broad-based democratic principles, intended to per-
petuate old committees constituted under the repealed Act. 
Section 16(1) of the Act, properly construed, was clearly 
inapplicable to the first general election under the Act and 
could apply only to subsequent elections. So far as the first 
general elec

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