LexRAI RAMKRISHNA & OTHERS versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • ' 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 897 there is nothing to show that any damage had been caused to the Inamdars of the village as a result of the di version of the water caused by the military authorities. Therefore, we are satisfied that the appellant cannot now make an alternative case on the ground of his rights as a riparian owner. -- The result is, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs, two sets; one hearing fee .. Appe~l aismi.,sed. RAI RAMKRISHNA & OTHERS v. THE STATE OF BIHAR (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) Tazing Statide-Tax on passengers and goods-Retros· pective operation-Validity-Restrictions, if unreasonable- Fundamental rights, if infringed-State's power of taxation- Gonstitution of India, Arts. 19(1)(/) and (g), (6), (6), 304(b), Seventh Schedule, hist II, Entry 66-liihar Finance Act, ltl60 ( Bihar 17 of 1960)-Bihar Taxation on Passengers and Goods (Carried by Public Service Motor Vehicles) Act, 1961, (Bihar 17 of 1961) ss. 1 (3), 23(b) • On March 30, 1950, the Bihar Legislature pa<sed the Bihar Finance Act, 1950. That Act levied a tax on passengers and goods carried by public service motor vehicles in Bihar. The appellants challenged the validity of the Act and certain provisions of the Act were struck down by this Court. The respondent then issued the Bihar Ordinance No. II of 196! on August I, 1961. By that Ordinance, the provisions of the Act of 1950 which had been struck down by this Court were vali- dated and brought into force retrospectively from the date when the earlier Act purported to come into force. Later on, the provi- sions of the said Ordinance were incorporated in the Bihar 19'8 Shan/cJJr Narlfllll &Md1 v' Union of India GqjendragoJ"4T, J, J96J .. - Ra,_.,... ... n, St.u .t Bilw 898 SUPRiEME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL. Taxation on Passengcn and Goods (Carried by Public Service> Motor Vehicles) Act, 1961·. As a result of the retrospective operation of the Act of 1961, its material provisions were deem- ed to have come into force from April I, 1950, the date on which the Act of 1950 came into forrc. · The appellants challenged the validity of the Act of 1961 but their writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court which held that the Act in its entirety was valid. The appell· ants came to this Court by, special leave. The appellant• conceded in this Court that the Act of 1961 in its prospective operation was perfectly valid and s. 23 (a) which validated the acts done under the Act of 1950 was valid. Wh~t was contended by the appellants was that the provisions of s. 23(b) in so far as they referred to proceedings commenced under the Act of 1950 but not completed before the Act of 1961 came into force were invalid. It was also contended that the retrospec- tive operation prescribed by s. l (3) and a part of '· 23(b) so completely altered the character of the tax pro, osed to be retrospectively recovered that it introduced a serious infirrnity in the legislative competence of the Bihar Legislature itself and the retrospective operation .was so unreasonable that it could not be saved either under Art. 304(b) or Art. 19(5) and (6) of the Constitution of India. Held, that if In irs essential features a taxing statute Is within the competence of the Legislature which passed i•. by reference to the relevant entry in the List, its character Is not necessarily changed merely by its retrospective operation so as to make the said retrospective operation outside the legislative . compet.11ce of the said legislature. The challenge to the validity of the retrospective operation of the Act on the ground that the provision was beyond the legislative competence of the Bihar ~islature, must ~rejected. . Htld, als> that the restriction imposed on the fundamental dghts of the appellants under Art. 19(l)(f) and (g) by the retrospective operatioll' of the Act was reasonable within the meaning of Aris. 19(5) and (6) and A··t. 304(b). The test of the length of time cavered by the retrospective operation cannot by itself be treated as a decisive test. Where the legislature can make a valirl law, it can pro- vide not only for tho prospective operation of the materhl provisions of the said law, but it ran also provid' fo1 1 he retros· pertive operation of the said provision•. The legislative power includes the subsidiary or the auxiliary power to validate I~
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.