Unconstitutional taxing proviso treated as void, not merely unenforceable; later Supreme Court view under Article 141 prevailed.

A post-Constitution provision found unconstitutional for offending Article 14 was treated as void to the extent of the constitutional inconsistency, not merely as an unenforceable clause. On that basis, the impugned proviso to the Mysore Sales Tax Act could not survive for assessment of hotel keepers and the general charging provision alone governed the levy. The Court also held that a majority view of the Supreme Court on a question of law is binding under Article 141, and a later inconsistent Supreme Court pronouncement prevails over earlier contrary observations. The constitutional challenge therefore failed and the assessment notice remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, struck down as unconstitutional for offending Article 14, became merely unenforceable or ceased to exist for the purpose of assessment of hotel keepers. (ii) Whether the later decision of the Supreme Court on the effect of unconstitutional post-Constitution legislation bound the Court in preference to the earlier view relied on by the petitioner.

Issue (i): Whether the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, struck down as unconstitutional for offending Article 14, became merely unenforceable or ceased to exist for the purpose of assessment of hotel keepers.

Analysis: The earlier line of authority was distinguished as dealing with pre-Constitution laws that remained on the statute book but operated under the shadow of constitutional invalidity until the constitutional impediment was removed. The later Supreme Court decision was treated as laying down that a post-Constitution law made in excess of constitutional limitations is void ab initio to the extent of the contravention and does not merely remain unenforceable. On that approach, the impugned proviso could not be treated as surviving only as an unenforceable clause; once held unconstitutional, it was to be ignored, leaving the general charging provision to operate according to its own terms.

Conclusion: The proviso was held to be non-existent for the purpose of levy and not merely unenforceable; the contention of the petitioner failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the later decision of the Supreme Court on the effect of unconstitutional post-Constitution legislation bound the Court in preference to the earlier view relied on by the petitioner.

Analysis: The Court held that a view expressed by the majority of the Supreme Court on a question of law constitutes the law declared under Article 141, even if that proposition was not the immediate basis of the result in that case. Where there are inconsistent pronouncements, the later pronouncement was treated as prevailing over earlier conflicting observations. On that basis, the later Supreme Court decision governed the present controversy.

Conclusion: The later Supreme Court view was held to be binding and to prevail over the earlier contrary observations.

Final Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable on the assessee's constitutional challenge to the taxing proviso, and the assessment notice was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A majority view of the Supreme Court on a question of law is binding under Article 141, and a post-Constitution provision repugnant to constitutional limitations is void to the extent of the contravention rather than merely unenforceable.

---