Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the levy of sales tax on agricultural machinery under the Punjab sales tax law was invalid because the statute was said to confer excessive discretion in fixing the rate and because the later central law exempted agricultural machinery from state taxation.
Analysis: The levy was made under the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act as amended retrospectively by Punjab Act 19 of 1952, which inserted an upper limit of two pice in the rupee and deemed that limit to have always been part of the original enactment. The later Central Act 52 of 1952 barred only post-commencement State laws taxing goods declared essential for the life of the community unless reserved for and assented to by the President. Since the State tax law had been in force since 1948 and the defect in the rate-fixing provision was cured retrospectively, the Act could not be treated as having been enacted only in 1952. The retrospective amendment removed the alleged defect from the beginning and did not invalidate the earlier law.
Conclusion: The sales tax law was held to be valid and intra vires, and the levy on agricultural machinery was not illegal.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the tax failed, and the levy was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory defect cured retrospectively by amendment does not render the original taxing law invalid, and a later central restriction on new State laws does not invalidate an existing State tax enactment whose defect has been retrospectively removed.