STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS versus M/S A.J. INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD AND ANR.

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 773 · Decided: 28-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
773
   [2023] 4 S.C.R. 773
773
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS
v.
M/S A.J. INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 8980-8981/2012)
APRIL 28, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968– s.16-B–
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s.35–Held: s.16-B of
the HPGST Act is not ultra vires any provision of law – It is a perfectly
valid piece of legislation and is not ultra vires the Constitution and/
or the Banking Companies Act as erroneously held in the decision
of the High Court impugned in CA No.9212 of 2012– Further, in
view of the decision in Central Bank of India case, any observation
in the decision impugned in CA No.8980 of 2012 touching upon
s.16-B of the HPGST Act vis-à-vis s.35 of the SARFAESI Act is of no
effect–Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954.
Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968– s.16-B –
“Tax to be first charge on property” – Himachal Pradesh Land
RevenueAct, 1954 – Chapter VI– Held: s.16-B would be attracted
only after determination of the liability and upon any sum becoming
due and payable; and it is only thereafter that the charge, if any,
would operate – In the present case, proceedings were not initiated
upon notice to the defaulters and the sum they owed to the department
had not been finally determined in accordance with law–Thus,
question of the State resorting to the provisions contained in Chapter
VI of the HPLR Act for recovering the dues, if at all, as arrears of
land revenue did not arise–Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Practice and Procedure – Held: A decision on the
constitutional validity of a provision should be invited not in vacuum
but when the justice of the case demands such a decision – Decision
on an infructuous writ petition is inconsequential and can never be
of any effect.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.151 – Held: When the law
provides a specific remedy, it is not open to a party to take recourse
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
to s.151 – It preserves the inherent powers of the court to do justice
in a case where the party has no other remedy under the CPC–
Practice and Procedure.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD:1.1A law, which the State legislature had the
competence to enact, has been outlawed by the High Court while
hearing a writ petition which was rendered infructuous due to
developments subsequent to its filing and prior to its disposal
but such developments had not been brought to the notice of the
High Court. For all intents and purposes, the High Court by its
judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2008 decided an
infructuous writ petition and, in the process, outlawed section
16-B of the HPGST Act when the same was not at all warranted.It
was also a clear but inadvertent error on the part of this Court to
dismiss only the special leave petition against PNB as
infructuous; the appropriate course for this Court ought to have
been to dismiss the writ petition of PNB itself as infructuous
having regard to the clear stand taken by PNB in its aforesaid
affidavit dated 30th September, 2010 that nothing survived for a
decision on the writ petition on the date it was decided in view of
release of the property from mortgage. In view of dismissal of
the special leave petition qua PNB by the order dated 8th April,
2011, the judgment and order outlawing section 16-B of the
HPGST Act can be examined.[Paras 29, 31 and 32][788-G-H; 789-
E-G]
A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 : [1988]
1 Suppl. SCR 1– referred to.
1.2 Since the writ petition had been rendered infructuous
on the date it was decided, it was not necessary for the High
Court to pronounce on the validity of section 16-B. A decision on
the constitutional validity of a provision should be invited not in
vacuum but when the justice of the case demands such a decision.
Hence, it is held that the decision on an infructuous writ petition
is inconsequential and can never be of any effect. The issue as to
whether section 16-B of the HPGST Act is ultra vires any
provision of law including the supreme law of the country is no
longer res integra. What appears to be of significance in the light
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
775
of the decision in Central Bank of India is that the findings in the
judgments and orders disposing of the writ petitions impugned
in two of the four c

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