Validating fiscal notification and taxable sales treatment upheld where Schedule inconsistency could not defeat legislative intent.

A validating enactment may retrospectively deem specified sales tax notifications to have been issued under the parent Act and to continue in force until amended, varied or rescinded; an inconsistent recital in the Schedule cannot override that clear legislative intent, so the earlier notification remained operative. On the turnover issue, permit sales and other controlled transactions were not shown to be non-sales in law; controls over purchases did not establish any legal restriction on the sales themselves, so the turnover remained within the charging provision and liable to tax.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Notification No. ST-909/X dated 31 March 1956, having been validated by the U.P. Sales Tax (Validation) Act, 1958, remained operative notwithstanding the inconsistent recital in the Schedule. (ii) Whether the turnover represented by permit sales or controlled transactions could be excluded on the ground that they were not sales liable to tax.

Issue (i): Whether Notification No. ST-909/X dated 31 March 1956, having been validated by the U.P. Sales Tax (Validation) Act, 1958, remained operative notwithstanding the inconsistent recital in the Schedule.

Analysis: The validating provision deemed the specified notifications to have been issued under the relevant sections of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, with retrospective effect, and declared them valid and continuing until amended, varied, or rescinded. The inconsistent reference in the Schedule to supersession by later notifications was treated as an error, since it could not override the clear legislative intent expressed in the validating section. Accordingly, the earlier notification was held to have been revived and to remain in force, while the later invalid notification had not been revived.

Conclusion: The validity and continued operation of Notification No. ST-909/X dated 31 March 1956 were upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the turnover represented by permit sales or controlled transactions could be excluded on the ground that they were not sales liable to tax.

Analysis: The material placed did not establish that the transactions lacked the character of sales. The affidavit relied upon referred only to controls over purchases and did not show any legal control over the sales themselves. On the record, the transactions could not be treated as non-sales so as to escape tax liability.

Conclusion: The contention that the relevant turnover was outside the charging provision was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The tax levy was sustained and the assessee obtained no relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A validating enactment giving retrospective effect to specified fiscal notifications must be given effect according to its clear language, and an internal inconsistency in a Schedule cannot defeat the substantive legislative intent; a transaction is taxable as a sale unless the material establishes that it is not a sale in law.

---