1977 (5) TMI 81 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court upholds Orissa Taxation Acts validity, emphasizing retroactive effect and appeal provisions.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Orissa Taxation Acts of 1959, 1962, and 1968, particularly emphasizing the validity of the Orissa ... Constitutional validity of Orissa Legislature enacted the Orissa Taxation (on Goods carried by Roads or Inland Waterways) Act, 7 of 1959 challenged Held that:- If any appeal challenging. an order of assessment is filed beyond the period of limitation and the authority is satisfied that the appeal could not be filed within limitation for the reason that the Acts of 1959 and 1962 were held to be unconstitutional, the delay in filing the appeal would be condoned. We are equally confident that if any appeal filed for challenging an order of assessment was withdrawn or not pursued for the reason that the two Acts were held unconstitutional, the authority concerned would pass appropriate orders reviving the appeal. We are happy to note the assurance of the learned Advocate-General of the State of Orissa that the State will not oppose in such cases the condonation of delay or the revival of appeals. For these reasons we dismiss the appeals. The points raised in these appeals undoubtedly involve the determination of questions as to the constitutional validity of a State law but they are so utterly devoid of substance that Mr. Asoke Sen and Mr. Gokhale who appear for the appellants could say nothing in support of their contentions beyond barely stating them Issues:1. Challenge to the constitutionality of the Orissa Taxation Acts of 1959, 1962, and 1968.2. Validity of the Orissa Taxation (on Goods carried by Roads or Inland Waterways) Act, 8 of 1968.3. Retroactive effect and legal fiction created by the Act of 1968.4. Comparison with previous judgments and legal principles.5. Concerns regarding assessment appeals and limitation periods.6. Impact of Article 144A of the Constitution on the determination of constitutional validity.Analysis:The Supreme Court addressed the challenge to the constitutionality of the Orissa Taxation Acts of 1959, 1962, and 1968. The appellants contested the Acts on various grounds, including lack of presidential sanction for the 1959 Act. The Court noted that the Act of 1968 was introduced with the President's prior approval, complying with constitutional requirements. The Act aimed to levy taxes on specified goods carried by roads or inland waterways in Orissa and validate previous tax impositions. The retrospective effect of the Act, from the date of the 1959 Act, was highlighted, emphasizing the legislative intent to rectify past deficiencies.In comparing the present case with past judgments, the Court distinguished the legislative actions in the Act of 1968 from the unconstitutional provisions in previous laws. The Court clarified that the Act of 1968 did not render the earlier Acts valid but instead introduced a new taxing statute with retroactive application. The legal fiction created by deeming actions under the 1959 Act as under the 1968 Act was deemed permissible under constitutional provisions.Regarding concerns raised by appellants on the Act's reasonableness and potential limitations on assessment appeals, the Court provided assurance that the Act of 1968 accommodated provisions for appeal admission, revision, and review even after the expiration of the limitation period. The Court emphasized the authorities' discretion to condone delays in filing appeals due to the unconstitutionality of previous Acts, ensuring the appellants' rights to challenge assessments.The Court also discussed the impact of Article 144A of the Constitution on the determination of constitutional validity. While acknowledging the necessity for a larger bench to decide constitutional questions, the Court expressed concerns about the potential burden on the judiciary due to the minimum number of judges required for such determinations. The Court suggested the need for parliamentary review to allow the judiciary flexibility in determining bench sizes for different cases, considering the workload and significance of the constitutional issues at hand.