SHIV DUTT RAI FATEH CHAND ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 198 · Decided: 06-05-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
SHIV DUTT RAI FATEH CHAND ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ETC. 
May 6,1983 
(A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] 
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956-Sub-section (2-AJ of section 9 introd."Jced by 
Ceritral Sales Tax (A1nendment) Act, 1976-Applicability of provisions relating to 
penalties leviab/e under general sales tax laws of the States to the proceedings 
under the Act-And seltion 9 of the Central Sales Tax (An1end111ent) Act, 1976-
RelroSpective opera/ion-Whether sub_-section (2'-A) of section 9 of the Act suffers 
from vice of excessive delcgation-iVhether sub-section (2-A) and section 9 of tfie 
Amending Act· violative of Article 19 (I) (f) and (g) and Article 20 (I) of the 
ConStitution. 
· 
.... Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973-Section 48-Whether confers 
D. 
1111canalised, unguided and arbitrary power-Validity of~ 
E 
F 
G 
H. 
Constitution of lndia-Arifr!e 20 gives const(tutional prot~ctio11 lo pe,-sot1s 
charged with crin1e before crin1in,al court. 
Words and phrases-Penalty-Meaning of-A Word of wide sfgnificailce-· 
Used in Article 20 (J) of the Constitution in a narrow sense. 
Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as ariiended retrospe·::tively 
by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969 provided for levy aiid collec-
tion of tax.and penalties on sale of goods effected by a dealer in the course of 
inter-State trade or commerce. It further provided tt~at the authorties for the 
tin\c being empowered to assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of. any 
tax under the gener8.I sales tax law of the· apprOpriate State shall, on behalf of 
Govern1nent of India, assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of tax in-
cluding any penalty, payable by a dealer under Lhis ACt as if the tax or penalty 
payable by such a-dealer umil.cr this Act is a tax or penalty undef the general 
sates tax Jaw of the State; and for this purpose they 1nay exercise all or any of 
the powers they have under the general sales tax 13:W of the State. Consequent . 
- upon the decision of this Court in Khe111ka & Co. v. State of Maharashtra; 
[1975) 3 S.C.R. 753 l1olding by a majority that it was not open to the 
authorities under the State law to levy and recover penalty for delay or default 
in payment of tax under the Central Sales Tnx Act, 195_6, section 9, of the Act 
came -to be amended by the Central sales Tax (Amendn1ent) Act, 1976 intro-
ducing sub-section (2-A) in it. Sub-section (2-A) of section 9 provided that all 
the provisions relating to offences and penalties (with certain_ exceptions) of 
the g,~TI.eral sales tax Jaw of each State shatt with necessa,ry modification, apply 
in rela1ion to the assessment, re-assessment, colk ct ion and the enforcement or 
'I. 
payment of any ta~ required to be collected under thjs Act in such State as if 
the tax under this Act were a tax ·under such sales tax law. 
, ..
r 
SillV DUTT v. UNION 
199 
Section 9 of the Amending Act, 1976 declared that the provisions of 
section 9 of the 1956 Act would have effect and should be deemed· always to 
A 
have had effect in relation to the period commencing from January 5, 1957 
(the date of coming into force of 1956 Act) and ending with the date imrrtedia-
tely proceeding the date of com1nencement of the Amending Act. 
The petitloners in these two batcl1es of petitions filed under Article 32 of 
the Coflstitution are dealers under the Central Sales Tax. Act, 1956 (herein-after 
referred to as 'the Act') having their places of business at..Maharashtra, 
Haryana etc. They have questioned the const.itutional validity of sub-section 
(2-A) of section 9 of the Act as introduced by the Central Sales Tax 
(Amendment) Act, 1976 (herein-after referred to as 'the Amending Act' and 
section 9 of the Amending Act validating _.the levy of penalties under thC 
Act with retrospective effect on the following grounds : 
• 
(1) That th'e introductioO of sub-section (2-A) in secticin 9 of the Act 
b)' the Arr.ending .Act, 1976 does. not have the effect of- making the provisiolls 
relating to p.::nalties leviab!e under the general sales tax laws of the States 
applicable to the assessees under the Act as The word 'penalties' is not found 
along with the words 'assessment, re-assessment, collection and the enforce-
m·ent of payment of any tax' in sub-section (2-A.); the lacuna in the Act, which 
D 
was pointed out by this Court in Kehmka's case nainely.that there is no specific 
proviSion lev·ying penalties in the Act remaias unfilled up ev

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