Constitutional validity of seizure powers upheld under sales tax law; earlier contrary ruling treated as per incuriam.

A judicial declaration that a statutory provision is ultra vires does not repeal it or erase it from the statute book; it only prevents enforcement while the declaration stands. Applying that principle, the Andhra Pradesh High Court accepted the later view that section 28(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was constitutionally valid, treated the earlier contrary decision as per incuriam, and held that the provision was an ancillary regulatory measure within legislative competence under the sales tax entry. It also declined to refer the matter to a Full Bench, finding no binding conflict. The seizure of unaccounted goods was therefore upheld as authorised by law.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 28(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was constitutionally valid and authorised seizure and confiscation of unaccounted goods, and whether an earlier decision declaring it invalid had the effect of erasing the provision or required reference to a Full Bench.

Analysis: The Court held that a judicial declaration that a provision is ultra vires does not repeal or erase the enactment from the statute book; it only withholds enforcement so long as the declaration holds the field. It accepted the later Division Bench view that section 28(6) was constitutionally valid and treated the earlier contrary ruling as per incuriam. The provision was characterised as an ancillary and regulatory measure within legislative competence under the sales tax entry, and the Court declined to refer the matter to a Full Bench, finding no binding conflict between the decisions.

Conclusion: Section 28(6) was held valid and enforceable, and the seizure of the goods was upheld as authorised by law; the challenge failed.

---