RATTAN LAL & CO. & ANR. versus THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 544 · Decided: 29-10-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RATTAN J,AL & CO. & ANR. 
A 
v. 
THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY & ANR. 
October 29, 1968 
[M. HlDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. C. SHAH, 
V. R.AMASWAMr. 
B 
K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Punjab General Sa/es Tax Act. 1948 as amended by Punjab Act 7 
of 1967 and Haryaua Act 14 of 1967, ss. 5, llAA-Fixation of stage of 
tax-A111end111ents if contravene s. 15 Central Sc;les Tax Act, 
1955-[j 
discrilninato1y-Constitution of India, Art. 304. 
In Bhawani Cotton Mills v. State of Punj"/1, 
11967] 3 S.C.R. 577 
this Court struck down s. 5(1) second proviso and ss. 5(2) (a)(vi) of 
the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 as contravening s. 15 of the 
Central Sales Tax- Act, 1955, because, neither the Punjab Act nor the 
rules made thereunder indicated, as required by the Central Act the stage 
at which tax was to be levied. 
After the formation of the new States of 
Punjab and Haryana, the Act was amended by the legislatures of the 
two States by Act 7 of 1967 and 14 of 1967 respectively. 
The amend-
ments fixed it at the stage of sale or purchase of goods by the last dealer 
liable to pay tax. 
In a writ petition before this Court the 
petitioners 
contended that (i) the position had not altered at all even after the 
an1endn1ents and the liability to taxation at different stages still remained 
and therefore the Act con.tinued to be in conflict with the Central Sales 
Tax Act; (ii) the legislatures of the two States were not competent to 
amend retrospectively an act passed by the composite State; (iii) by 
leaving it free to the execlltivc to impose the tax within the maximun1 
fixed there was excessive delegation of legislative functions; (iv) there 
Yl'as discrimination in the new s. 1 lAA and the opportunity given to a 
dealer to ask for reassessment or to submit to the old assessment and 
(v) the Act discriminated between imported goods and local goods and 
therefore contravened the equality clause and Art. 30. of the Constitution. 
HELD : Disn1issing the petition. 
(1) The Act by specifying the stage as the last purchase or sale by 
a dealer liable to pay the tax makes the stage quite clear. The matter 
is no\V in the hands of the dealer and he has to find out for himself 
\vhether he is liable to pay the tax or not. 
A dealer knows what he 
has done \\'ith his goods or is going to do with them. 
By providin_g 
that he need not include in his turnover any transaction except when he 
is the last dealer. the positfon is no\V made clear. 
f553 F. G] 
(2) The competency of the legislatures of Punjab and Haryana to 
an1end an Act passed by the con1posite State cannot be questioned. After 
the reorganisation the Act applied as an independent Act: to each of the 
areas and is subject to the legislative competence of the legislature 
i:n 
that area. [556 BJ 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
( 3) There is no abdication of legislative functions in favour of the 
administrative aulhority as the Central Act itself gives 
poVl'er to 
the 
H 
legislature to choose a rate of tax at not more than 3% of the taxable 
tul·novcr. 
~rhc tax levied is '.\'cl! \vi thin. that. lin1it 
and 
therefore 
the 
Legislature has 
chO'scn 
the 
n1axin1un1 
nnd has left it free 
to 
the 
•• 
-' 
t 
• 
• 
• 
RATTAN & CO. V. ASSESSING AUTHORITY 
545 
A 
authorities to impose the tax within that maximun1 regard being had to 
the requirements of revenue and the expenditure necessary for the State. 
[555 GJ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(4) The opportunity given to a dealer in s. llAA to ask for re-
assessment or to submit to the old assessment does not result in discrimi-
nation. 'fhis is open to every dealer an<l the intention is to give an oppor-
tunity to the dealer himself leaving it to his own will whether to ask 
for a refund or not. 
[555 E--F] 
(5) When a taxing State is not imposing rates of tax on imported 
goods different from rates. of tax on goods manufactured or produced. 
Article 304 has no application. 
So long as the rate is the same ·Art. 304 
is satisfied. 
In the instant case the tax is at the same rate and therefore 
tax cannot be said to be higher in the case of imported goods. 
When 
the rate is applied the resulting tax may be somewhat higher but that 
does not contravene the equality contemplated by Art. 304. 
[557 B, CJ 
State of Madras v. N. K. Natraja, Muda/iar, [1969] 1 S.C.R. referred 
to. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions Nos. 133, 165, 169-
172, 185, 218, 219, 227, 228, 230, 239, 252, 253, 248 and 249 
of 1968. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution o

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