Retrospective tax validation upheld where the Legislature cured statutory defects without abdication, discrimination, or interference with judicial power.

Retrospective validation of sales tax on oil cakes and foreign liquor was upheld where the Legislature cured defects in the principal statute through an amending enactment. The court noted that power to impose a tax prospectively includes power to validate and levy it retrospectively, and that reference to earlier notifications did not amount to abdication of legislative function because the validation was done by the Legislature itself. The Article 14 challenge failed for want of a factual basis showing hostile discrimination, and the provision requiring review of earlier assessments was held valid because it only brought assessments into conformity with the validating law without directing judicial outcomes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the retrospective validation of sales tax on oil cakes and foreign liquor under the amending legislation was unconstitutional for infringing the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g); (ii) whether the Legislature had abdicated its legislative function in favour of the executive by validating the levy with reference to notifications issued under the principal Act; (iii) whether the retrospective levy and validation violated Article 14 on the ground of discriminatory treatment; (iv) whether the provision requiring review of earlier assessments was ultra vires.

Issue (i): Whether the retrospective validation of sales tax on oil cakes and foreign liquor under the amending legislation was unconstitutional for infringing the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g).

Analysis: The levy was held to be within legislative competence, and the power to impose sales tax prospectively necessarily included the power to impose and validate it retrospectively. The amendment merely removed the defect that had led to the earlier judicial view and made the legislative intent explicit. The fact that dealers may not have passed the tax on to purchasers during the interregnum did not affect the competence of the Legislature to validate the levy retrospectively.

Conclusion: The challenge under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) failed and the retrospective levy was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the Legislature had abdicated its legislative function in favour of the executive by validating the levy with reference to notifications issued under the principal Act.

Analysis: The amendment was enacted by the Legislature itself. Merely because the statute referred to earlier notifications for the purpose of identifying the entries and giving retrospective effect did not amount to delegation or abdication. The Legislature had only adopted a compendious form of drafting to validate the levy and cure the defect pointed out by the earlier judgment.

Conclusion: The contention of abdication of legislative function was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the retrospective levy and validation violated Article 14 on the ground of discriminatory treatment.

Analysis: No specific factual foundation establishing hostile discrimination was made out. The Legislature was competent to exempt some goods and tax others, and the retrospective validation of the levy on oil cakes did not disclose any unconstitutional discrimination. The classification was not shown to be arbitrary or irrational.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 14 failed.

Issue (iv): Whether the provision requiring review of earlier assessments was ultra vires.

Analysis: The impugned provision did not direct any court to decide matters in a particular way. It authorized the assessing authority to bring earlier assessments into conformity with the validating amendment and preserved the hearing requirement. Such a provision was within legislative competence and did not trench upon judicial power.

Conclusion: The provision was held to be valid.

Final Conclusion: The validating amendment was sustained in full and the retrospective levy on the relevant goods was held lawful, leaving no ground to interfere with the impugned tax demands or related assessments.

Ratio Decidendi: A Legislature competent to impose a tax prospectively may validate and impose it retrospectively, and it may cure defects in the parent statute by a validating amendment without amounting to abdication of legislative power, so long as the amendment is enacted by the Legislature itself and no unconstitutional discrimination or direct interference with judicial power is shown.

---