Preliminary sales tax notification was not "law" under reorganisation rules, so fresh notice was required before amendment.

A preliminary notification expressing an intention to amend a sales tax schedule under section 6(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was treated as only a statutory step and not as enforceable law. Because such a notification did not have the force of law, it did not fall within the inclusive definition in section 2(g) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and could not continue in force under section 88 after reorganisation. The successor authority therefore had to issue a fresh three months' notice before making the amendment; absent that notice, the amendment was invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether a prior notification issued by the erstwhile State, expressing an intention to amend a sales tax schedule, constituted "law" within the meaning of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, so as to continue in force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh under section 88; and whether the amendment made by the Chief Commissioner without issuing a fresh three months' notice under section 6(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was valid.

Analysis: The definition of "law" in section 2(g) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 is inclusive, but it extends only to enactments and to notifications having the force of law. A mere preliminary notification expressing an intention to amend a schedule under section 6(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was held not to be enforceable by a court and remained only an expression of intention, since the competent authority could still change its mind and no judicial process could compel the amendment. Such a notification was valid as a statutory step, but it was not "law" in the sense required by section 2(g). Consequently, it did not continue under section 88 after reorganisation, and the successor authority was bound to comply afresh with the statutory notice requirement before effecting any amendment.

Conclusion: The impugned amendment was invalid because the condition precedent under section 6(2) had not been satisfied by a fresh notice issued by the competent authority after reorganisation.

Ratio Decidendi: A preliminary statutory notification that is only an expression of intention and is not enforceable or recognisable as effective by a court does not amount to "law" for the purpose of continuation under a reorganisation statute.

---