RAM BHAROSEY LAL KRISHAN KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 146 · Decided: 21-10-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

146 
RAM BHAROSEY LAL KRISHAN KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
October 21, 1971 
[K. S. HEGDE AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 
Uttar Prade$h Sales Tax Act, 194B~s. 3AA, 3D-Noti.~cation under 
s. 3D imposinR purchase tax on goods covered by s. 3AA.-Validity-
Scope of .r. 3-D. 
Under s. 3AA of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, I 9'48 "not with-
standing anything contained in s. 3 or 3A" tax on the turnover of the 
goods specified therein was not leviable except at the point of sale by a 
dealer to the consumer. 
Section 30, incorporated into the Act later, 
authorised the imposition of a tax on the turnover of first purchase and on 
the issue of a notification under the section no tax could be levied under 
any other section in respect of the goods so notified. 
On the question 
whether the notification dated October 1, I 964 imposing a purchase tax 
on oil seeds was invalid for the reason that it contravened s. 3AA of the 
Act, 
HELD : It is open to the State Government to levy purchase tax, in 
exercise of its powers under s. 30, in respect df goods covered by s. 3AA. 
At the time the legislature incorporated into the Act s. 30 it must have 
been aware of the existence of s. 3AA, yet, in sub-s. (4) 
of s. 30 it 
decll>red that on the issue of a notification under the section, no tax shall 
be levied under any other section in respect of the goods so notified. The 
ambit of this provision is very wide and it clearly takes in goods mentioned 
in s. 3AA. 
Further, the non-obstante clause does not take in s. 3D, and 
if the legislature intend,ed to exclude the operation of s. 30, in respect of 
matters covered by s. 3AA nothing would have been easier than to say so. 
Therefore, there are no grounds to cut down the amplitude of the power 
conferred on the State Government under sub-s. ( 4) of s. 3-0. [150 H-
151 DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 240 and 
241 of 1969. 
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated December 18. 
1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 4697 
of 1968. 
J. P. Goyal and Sobhag Mal Jain, for the appellant (in both 
the appeals). 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
L. M. Singhvi and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents \in both 
G 
the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J. 
These are appeals by certificate. 
They are by 
the same appellant and 
they raise common 
questiQll of law. 
Hence they are considered together. 
ff 
Two questions of law were urged on behalf of the appellant 
in support of the appeals. 
The first contention urged was that 
,. 
I 
RAM BHAROSEY v. U.P. STATE (Hegde, J.) 
141" 
A Section 3-D(l) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (to be herein-
after referred to as the Act) is ultra vires the Constitution, firstly 
because that under that section excessive legislative power had 
been delegated to the State Government a'lld secondly on the 
ground that it discriminates between the registered dealers who 
made their purchases through licensed dealers and the registered 
B dealers who made their purchases through dealers who are not 
licensed. The second contention taken was that notification No. 
ST-7122/X-900(16)64 dated October 1, 1964 issued under s. 
3-D ( 1) of the Act imposing purchase tax on oil seeds is invalid 
as it contravenes s. 3AA of the Act. 
C 
We have considered the first ground of attack in Civil Appeals 
Nos. 362 and 1692 of 1969 (M/s. Sita Ram Bishambhar Dayal 
etc. v. State of U.P.) in which we have delivered judgment just 
now. For the reasons mentioned therein, the contention that s. 
3-D(l) is ultra vires the Constitution fails. 
The only surviving question is whether the notification re-
D ferred to earlier is violative of s. 3AA of the Act. 
Before examining that contention, it is necessary to set out the 
relevant facts. 
The appellant is a partnership firm. It carries on business as 
dealers in groundnuts, oil seeds and Arhar. For the assessment 
E years 1965-66, 1966-67, the Sales-tax Officer. Rampur assessed 
the appellant to sales-tax on the turnover of the groundnuts oil 
manufactured by the appellant and to purchase tax on the turn-
over of the oil seeds and foodgrains. 
The appellant unsuccess-
fully appealed against the assessment orders. Thereafter it took 
up the matter in revision before the revising 11uthority. 
There· 
F 
again it substantially failed. Aggrieved by that decision, he moved' 
the High Court of Allahabad for a writ of certiorari quashing the 
levy of purchase tax imposed on him in respect of his purchases

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