Taxing amendment with fixed commencement date upheld; non-collection by dealer did not invalidate the levy or Article 14 classification.

A taxing amendment that expressly fixed 1 August 1963 as its commencement date was held to operate from that date, and later assent or publication did not alter its effect. The levy under section 5-A remained valid even though the dealer could not collect the tax during the intervening period, because tax liability rested on the seller and non-collection did not affect legality. The Article 14 challenge also failed, as the classification had already been upheld and no hostile discrimination was shown. The writ petition was dismissed and the amendment and levy were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 1(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1963 made the amending provision operative from 1 August 1963 notwithstanding later assent and publication. (ii) Whether the levy under section 5-A was invalid because the dealer could not collect the tax on transactions between 1 August 1963 and the date of publication. (iii) Whether section 5-A was unconstitutional as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether section 1(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1963 made the amending provision operative from 1 August 1963 notwithstanding later assent and publication.

Analysis: The commencement provision expressly fixed 1 August 1963 as the date from which the amendment was to operate. Where the legislature names a specific commencement date, the Act takes effect from that date, and the later receipt of assent or publication does not displace the expressed intention. Section 5 of the General Clauses Act was treated as supporting the rule that a fixed commencement date governs the operation of the statute.

Conclusion: The provision was held to operate from 1 August 1963, and the challenge on the ground of later assent and publication failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy under section 5-A was invalid because the dealer could not collect the tax on transactions between 1 August 1963 and the date of publication.

Analysis: The liability to pay sales tax rested on the seller under the statute, and the ability or inability to pass on the burden to purchasers did not alter the character or validity of the tax. The absence of actual collection during the relevant period did not make the levy incompetent or unlawful.

Conclusion: The levy was held valid notwithstanding non-collection during the intervening period.

Issue (iii): Whether section 5-A was unconstitutional as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The classification introduced by section 5-A had already been upheld in an earlier decision of the Court. Following that view, no arbitrariness or hostile discrimination was accepted in the present challenge.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 14 was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed in all respects, the impugned levy and amendment were sustained, and the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing amendment expressly fixes a commencement date, the statute operates from that date despite later assent or publication, and the inability to collect the tax from purchasers does not affect the validity of the levy or its classification under Article 14.

---