Retrospective validation of tax notifications upheld as legislative fiction cured the defect and supervisory controls defeated arbitrariness challenge.

Retrospective validation of the 31 March 1956 sales tax notifications was upheld because the U.P. Sales Tax (Validation) Act, 1958 created a legal fiction treating them as issued under section 3A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, thereby curing the earlier defect. The challenge that section 3A conferred unconstitutional unfettered discretion on the State Government failed because the delegated power was controlled by legislative supervision under section 3A(3), including laying before the Assembly and possible amendment or modification by resolution. Writ relief was also refused, as the complaints were remediable through statutory appeal, revision or reference and no manifest error justified certiorari jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the U.P. Sales Tax (Validation) Act, 1958 validly cured the defect in the notifications dated 31 March 1956 and validated them retrospectively; (ii) Whether section 3A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, as deemed to exist on 31 March 1956, conferred an unconstitutional unfettered discretion on the State Government; (iii) Whether the writ petitions should be entertained in view of the availability of statutory remedies and the absence of manifest error.

Issue (i): Whether the U.P. Sales Tax (Validation) Act, 1958 validly cured the defect in the notifications dated 31 March 1956 and validated them retrospectively.

Analysis: The validation provision created a legal fiction that the notifications were deemed to have been issued in exercise of the powers under section 3A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, as if the amended section had been in force on the relevant date. The legislative language was read as curing the defect pointed out earlier, namely that the notifications had not been issued in the form or under the authority required at the time. The Court held that the Legislature, being competent to legislate on the subject, could itself enact the same result or validate delegated legislation by retrospective fiction.

Conclusion: The validating Act effectively cured the defect and the notifications of 31 March 1956 stood validly validated.

Issue (ii): Whether section 3A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, as deemed to exist on 31 March 1956, conferred an unconstitutional unfettered discretion on the State Government.

Analysis: Although section 3A(1) empowered the State Government to issue notifications for goods or classes of goods, that power was controlled by section 3A(3), which required the notifications to be laid before the Legislative Assembly and made them subject to amendment or modification by resolution. The power was therefore not left wholly unguided or unchecked, and the statutory scheme provided legislative supervision over the delegated exercise.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 14 failed and section 3A was not held to confer an unconstitutional unfettered discretion.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ petitions should be entertained in view of the availability of statutory remedies and the absence of manifest error.

Analysis: The remaining objections related to orders of the Sales Tax Officers and involved matters for appeal, revision, or reference under the Sales Tax Act. No manifest error apparent on the face of the record was shown so as to justify certiorari jurisdiction. The extraordinary writ jurisdiction was therefore not considered appropriate for such complaints.

Conclusion: The petitions were not entertainable on those grounds.

Final Conclusion: The notifications were upheld, the constitutional challenge failed, and the petitions were dismissed without grant of writ relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A legislature competent to enact a subject may retrospectively validate delegated legislation by creating a legal fiction, and a delegated power is not unconstitutional merely because it operates subject to legislative supervision and review.

---