Severability in sales tax notification: retrospective levy invalid, but the prospective notification remained effective.

A notification under section 3-AA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could not validly authorise levy from a back date, so the retrospective part was invalid. Applying severability, the Court treated the objectionable clause fixing levy from 30 November 1957 for dressed hides and skins as distinct from the rest of the notification, which was otherwise valid and capable of operating prospectively from 1 August 1958. The assessee obtained relief only for the earlier assessment period, while the later assessments remained sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notification issued under section 3-AA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was invalid in toto because it purported to authorise levy of sales tax from a date earlier than its issue, or whether the invalid retrospective part was severable from the valid prospective operation.

Analysis: Section 3-AA, as amended, empowered the State Government to declare the rate of tax by notification, and the validating amendment of 1964 gave retrospective effect to that power. Even so, the Court held that the State Government had no authority to authorise levy from a back date. The impugned notification, however, was not retrospective in its entirety: it took effect from 1 August 1958, and only the part fixing levy from 30 November 1957 for dressed hides and skins was objectionable. Applying the doctrine of severability and the principle that in taxing statutes the dominant object is revenue collection, the Court held that the prospective part of the notification was distinct and capable of standing on its own.

Conclusion: The retrospective portion of the notification was invalid, but the notification remained operative prospectively from 1 August 1958. The petition succeeded only in part, and the assessee obtained relief for the assessment year 1958-59 while the assessments for 1959-60 and 1960-61 were sustained.

---