Declared goods tax stage clarification upheld with retrospective review and validation provisions sustained against constitutional challenge.

Amended Punjab and Haryana sales tax provisions were upheld because they clearly fixed the taxing stage for declared goods as the last sale or last purchase by the dealer liable to tax, thereby removing the earlier uncertainty and aligning the State law with section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The retrospective amendment, review, and refund mechanism were held not to create discrimination, invalid delegation, or any breach of Articles 14 or 304(a), because the scheme applied uniformly and the tax rate limit was administratively applied within defined bounds. The successor State Legislatures were also competent to amend the law for their respective territories, including retrospectively.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended provisions of the Punjab and Haryana sales tax laws, fixing the stage of levy for declared goods and providing for review and validation, were inconsistent with section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (ii) Whether the retrospective amendment and review mechanism created discrimination or invalid delegation, or otherwise offended Articles 14 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India. (iii) Whether the State Legislatures, after reorganisation, had competence to amend the sales tax law as applied to their respective territories.

Issue (i): Whether the amended provisions of the Punjab and Haryana sales tax laws, fixing the stage of levy for declared goods and providing for review and validation, were inconsistent with section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The amended provisions expressly fixed the stage of tax in the case of declared goods as the last sale or last purchase by the dealer liable to pay tax. They also ensured that turnover at any other stage would not be included in taxable turnover. This removed the uncertainty that had existed under the unamended law, where the Act did not clearly identify the taxing stage and the earlier defect was that more than one person could be made liable in respect of the same goods. The amended scheme made the stage ascertainable from the dealer's own position and brought the State law into conformity with the Central restriction against multiple-stage taxation.

Conclusion: The amended provisions were not inconsistent with section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and were valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrospective amendment and review mechanism created discrimination or invalid delegation, or otherwise offended Articles 14 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The retrospective operation did not create any constitutional vice, because the relevant defect had been cured and the dealer could determine from his own transactions whether he was the last dealer liable. The provision allowing review and refund did not discriminate, since every dealer was treated alike and the option to accept the assessment or seek reconsideration was open uniformly. The fixation of a maximum rate, leaving its application to the administrative authority within that limit, was not unguided delegation. As to imported goods, the same rate of tax applied to local and imported goods alike, and any difference in tax burden resulted from price differences rather than differential tax treatment.

Conclusion: The retrospective and ancillary provisions did not offend Articles 14 or 304(a), and the delegation challenge failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the State Legislatures, after reorganisation, had competence to amend the sales tax law as applied to their respective territories.

Analysis: After reorganisation, the original enactment continued to operate as the law for the respective successor States within their territories, subject to amendment by the competent Legislature for that area. The fact that some amendments were given effect from dates anterior to the reorganisation did not deprive the successor Legislatures of power to legislate retrospectively in relation to the law as applicable in their territories.

Conclusion: The amendments were within legislative competence.

Final Conclusion: The challenged amendments cured the earlier defect concerning declared goods, did not create unconstitutional discrimination or invalid delegation, and were within the competence of the State Legislatures; the petitions therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a State sales tax law on declared goods clearly fixes the taxing stage as the last sale or last purchase by the dealer liable to tax, the law satisfies the Central restriction against multiple-stage levy and is not invalid merely because it operates retrospectively or provides review and validation machinery open equally to all dealers.

---