LexSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus M/S. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2011) 5 S.C.R. 509 STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. M/S. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 3405 of 2011) IN A Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2190 of 2008 B APRIL 20, 2011 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.) Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction of courts to issue a mandate to legislate an Act and to make subordinate legislation in a particular manner - Scope of - Assessment order - Safes tax exemption not granted to respondent - Challenged - High Court held that the wordings of central excise notification be D read into .the sales tax notification issued by the State Government - Held: The exclusive domain of legislation is with the legislature - Subordinate legislations are framed by the executive - The judiciary has been vested with the power to interpret the said legislations and to give effect to them - It E is a/ways appropriate for each of the organs to function within its domain - It is inappropriate for the courts to issue a mandate to legislate an Act and to make subordinate legislation in a particular manner - In the instant case, High Court had directed the subordinate legislation to substitute F wordings in a particular manner, thereby assuming to itself the role of a supervisory authority, which is not a power vested in the High Court - Exemption clauses should be strictly interpreted - Since High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the said order and in issuing the directions for inserting certain additional words into notification of exemption G issued by the Uttar Pradesh Government, the judgment by the High Court and a/so by the Tribunal are set aside - Matter remitted to the First Appellate Court for consideration afresh 509 H 510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R. A - Sales tax - Interpretation of statutes - Administrative law - Doctrines/Principles of separation of powers - Legislation. Bhai Jaspal Singh and another v. Assistant Commissioner ofCommercial Taxes and others (2011) 1 B SCC 39; Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and others (2011) 1 SCC 236; Novopan India Ltd. Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Hyderabad 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606 - relied on. Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. C Union of India and another (1989) 4 sec 187; Bal Ram Bali and another v. Union of India (2007) 6 SCC 805; Municipal Committee, Patiala v. Model Town Residents Association and others (2007) 8 SCC 669; Mis. Narinder Chand Hem Raj and others v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory, D Himachal Pradesh and others (1971) 2 SCC 747 - referred to. E F G H Case Law Reference: (1989) 4 sec 187 referred to Para 8 (2007) 6 sec sos referred to Para 8 (2007) 8 sec 669 referred to Para 8 (1971) 2 sec 747 referred to Para 8 (2011) 1 sec 39 relied on Para 10 (2011 > 1 sec 236 relied on Para 10 1994 Supp (3) sec 606 relied on Para 10 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3405 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 12.12.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 1760 of 1992. STATE OF U.P. v. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. 511 Kavin Gulati, S.K. Dwivedi, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Manoj A Kumar Dwivedi, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao for the Appellants. Dhruv Agarwal, Praveen Kumar for the Respondent. The following order of the Court was delivered 8 ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties in this appeal, which is filed challenging the legality of C the judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition filed by the respondent, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to read in the exemption notification, the words "Tractor Engine specifying Cubic Capacity (CC) of the Tractor Engine not exceeding 1800 CC. The Government of D India had issued notification on 16th April, 1985, making an amendment in the notification of the Government of India in respect of the table annexed to the notification, inserting by way of substitution the words "Tractors of Draw-Bar Horse Power not exceeding 25". Another notification was subsequently issued E by the Government of India on 17th July, 1985, substituting the words "Draw-Bar" with the words "Power Take-off Horse". Be it stated here that all such notifications relate to the payment of excise duty. 3. The Government of Uttar Pradesh, however, for the purpose of levy of sales tax issued a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.