1982 (8) TMI 206 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Administrator of Union Territory: President's Agent, Letters Patent Appeals Allowed

The court concluded that an Administrator of a Union Territory appointed under Part VIII of the Constitution is a medium through whom the President acts, ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether an Administrator of a Union Territory appointed under Part VIII of the Constitution is a delegate of the President or merely a medium through whom the President acts.2. The validity of the notifications issued by the Administrator of Chandigarh enhancing the sales tax rates.3. The applicability of the General Clauses Act to the interpretation of the relevant laws and notifications.4. The concept of delegation of legislative power and its implications in this context.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether an Administrator of a Union Territory is a delegate of the President or a medium through whom the President acts:The core issue revolves around whether the Administrator of a Union Territory acts as a delegate of the President or merely as a medium through whom the President exercises his constitutional functions. The judgment draws a distinction between delegation of powers and the President acting through a medium. The court referenced the Carltona Ltd. v. Commissioners of Works case, where it was established that functions given to ministers are exercised by responsible officials under the authority of the ministers, and constitutionally, the decision of such an official is the decision of the minister. This principle was affirmed in Indian context by the Constitution Bench in A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras, where it was held that officers are limbs of the Government and not its delegates. This view was further supported by the larger Bench in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, stating that the actions of an official are those of the minister or the President.2. The validity of the notifications issued by the Administrator of Chandigarh enhancing the sales tax rates:The notifications enhancing the sales tax rates were issued by the Chief Commissioner of Chandigarh, acting under the powers conferred by section 5 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. The court noted that the power to administer a Union Territory is vested in the President, who may act through an Administrator. The notifications issued by the Administrator were thus deemed to be acts of the President, and not a delegation of power. The court emphasized that the Administrator is a machinery or medium through which the President acts, not a delegate. The notifications were therefore valid as they were issued by the President through the Administrator.3. The applicability of the General Clauses Act to the interpretation of the relevant laws and notifications:The court considered the definition of 'Central Government' under section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act, which includes the President and, in relation to the administration of a Union Territory, the Administrator acting within the scope of the authority given under article 239 of the Constitution. The court found that the Central Government and the President are synonymous, and actions taken by the President are deemed to be actions of the Central Government. Therefore, the notifications issued by the Administrator, acting within the scope of his authority under article 239, are considered to be issued by the Central Government.4. The concept of delegation of legislative power and its implications in this context:The court clarified that the power to fix the rates of sales tax under section 5 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act is vested in the State Government, and by extension, the President for the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The court rejected the argument that there was a further delegation of legislative power, emphasizing that the President, acting through the Administrator, was exercising an executive function conferred by the legislature. The court concluded that the Administrator's actions were within the scope of the authority given by the President and did not constitute a further delegation of legislative power.Conclusion:The court concluded that an Administrator of a Union Territory appointed under Part VIII of the Constitution is a medium or machinery through whom the President acts and not a delegate. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the Chief Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh, were allowed, setting aside the judgment of the learned single judge and dismissing the writ petitions. The appeal by M/s. Sushil Flour Mills was dismissed. The court left the parties to bear their own costs due to the constitutional issues involved.