M/S SHENOY AND CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER BELE SRINIVASA RAO STREET, BBNGALORE AND OTHERS versus THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE II BANGALORE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 659 · Decided: 10-04-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

M/S SHENOY AND CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS 
PARTNER BELE SRINIVASA RAO STREET, 
BBNGALORE AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE II 
BANGALORE AND OTHERS 
10th April, 1985 
[D.A. DESAI, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADi AND V. KHALID, JJ.] 
659 
Declarative Judgment, effect, and binding nature of-Constitutiou of India, 
1950, Article 141 'scope. 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Writ ofmandanJus, meaning of-Several writ petitions filed by traders 
challengb1g the Constitutional validity of an Act was allowed by the High Court 
by a common jaudgrneni but the said judgment wa3 set aside by the Supreme Court 
in the only one State appeal preferr~d-Whether the ;aid judgment of the 
E 
Suprerne Court will not be binding upon the writ petitioners on the plea of 
non·filing of appeals by the State against theit writ petitions. 
That ConstitutionaJ validity of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods 
into Local Areas for consumption, use or sale therein Act, 1979, which came 
into force with effect· from 1.6.1979 was challenged in the Karnataka High 
Court by a large number of traders though a batch of 1590 writ petitions 
including writ petition No. 7039/79 by M/s. Hansa Corporation Bangalore. A 
Division Bench of the ~urt, by a common judgment dated 24.8.79 reported 
in ILR 1980 (1) Karnataka 165 allowed all the writ petitions and issued writs 
of mandamus against the State Government forbearing it from taking any 
proceedings uoder the Act. The State took the matter in appeal in this Court. 
However, only one appeal was filed,numbered as 3049 of 1979 against writ Peti. 
tion No. 170 39 of 1979 filed by M/s Hansa Corporation, impleading this Corpo~ 
ranon alone as respondent. ThisCourt by its judgment dat..:d 25.9.80 which is 
reported in 1981_ (l) SCR 823,allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the 
Karnataka High_..Court and upheld the validity of the Act. 
During the pendency of the civil appeal No. 3049 of 1979 Governor of 
Karnataka enacted the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into a Local Area 
F 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
660 
SUPREME COURTS REPORTS 
[i98SJ 3 s.c.R. 
for Consumption, use or sale therein (Act 21), Act 1980 with retrospective effect 
from 8.6.80 removing the infirmities in the 1979 Act. After the judgment of the 
Supreme Court in the Hansa Corporation's case the Governor of Karnataka 
promulgated another ordinance, Ordinance No. 11 of 1980 on 25.10.1980 
repealing the Entry Tax Act, 1980 from its inception with certain other direc-
tions regarding adjustment of tax if any paid. This was followed by Karnataka 
Tax on Entry of Goods into Loca! Areas, Use or Sale therein Act, of 1981. and 
K:irnataka. Act No. 10 of 1931, repealing the 1980 Act. however, did not 
repeal ordinance No. 11of1980. In the meantime, Karnataka Ordinance No. 3 
of 1981 came into force which was followed by Karnataka Act 12 of 19S I which 
repealed Ordance No. 11 of 1980. As a r'esult of the combined operation of 
ordinance No. 3of1981 and Act No 12of1981, the 1979 Act was made to be 
operative but only from I.10.80 and not from 1.6.79 as originally enacted. 
After the judgment of the Hansa Corporation•s case upholding the valdity 
of the 1979 Act, the authorities appointed under the Act, issued flotices under 
the Act to all th~ dealers including those who had filed writ petition earlier, 
calling upon them to register themselves under the Act, to file return.,, and to 
pay the amounts of tax due by them under the original Act of 1979. Aggrieved 
by the said notices, the original writ petitioners again filed writ pet'itions before 
the High Court of Karnataka contending that the notices issued to them were 
bad in as much as the writ of mandamus issued in their favour by the High 
Court in the earlier judgment survived and was effective since no state appeals 
were performed against them and that th~ judgment of the supreme Court could 
rescue the State from taking proceedings only against the Aansa Corporation 
and not aaainst them. The State met this contention with the plea that the 
judgment of the Supreme Court wa~ binding on all and no one could escape 
from it. The writ p:titions were dismissed by a single judge holding among 
other things, that section 3 of the Act No. IO Jf 1991 revived the 1979 Act and 
that action taken against th~ petitioners in the wdt petition~ was, therefore, 
valid. Appeals were filed against the judgment and a Division Bench of the 
Karnataka Hia:h Court dismissed the appe:ils holding that section 3 of the re-
pealing

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