TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (3) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ler shall, for each assessment year, pay a tax at the specified rate on his turnover of such year. The U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1956, inserted section 3-AA into the Act. Section 3-AA provided that notwithstanding anything contained in section 3, the turnover in respect of coal, iron and steel, raw jute, cotton, oil-seeds, or raw hides and skins shall not be liable to tax except at the point of sale by a dealer to the consumer, and the rate of tax shall not exceed three pies per rupee. The U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1957, amended section 3-AA. It may be noted that in the original section only raw hides and skins were mentioned. The amendment now included in section 3-AA dressed hides and skins. The amendment came into force with effect from 30th November, 1957. The U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1958, amended section 3-AA. It substituted for the words "two per cent." the words "two paise per rupee". Some other amendments were also made but we are not concerned with them. The State Government issued the impugned notification. It reads: "In pursuance of the provisions of section 3-AA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. 15 of 1948), as amended up to date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 3-AA. The power is given retrospectively. In view of this amendment it will be deemed that on 1st August, 1958, the State Government had the power to issue the impugned notification. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that section 3-AA, even after amendment in 1964, does not empower the State Government to authorise levy of sales tax from a date anterior to the date of the birth of the notification. In Shri Hari Kishan v. Commissioner of Sales Tax(1), a Division Bench of this court has held that the State Government has no power to authorise a levy from a back date. That decision is binding on us. Accordingly we will hold that clause (b) of the impugned notification, in so far as it authorises levy of sales tax from a back-date, is invalid. The next question is whether the tax can be assessed from 1st August, 1958, and onwards under the impugned notification. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the retrospective part of clause (b) of the impugned notification is invalid, effect cannot be given to the notification even from 1st August, 1958. According to him the entire clause (b) will fall down. In support of this argument he relies on Shri Hari Kishan's ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. It was assumed that that point of time was a back date. We shall show that the notification before us authorises levy of sales tax with effect from 30th November, 1957, and until it is deleted. It seems to us that Pathak, J., had the particular notification (as construed by him) in his mind. His observation is, we think, restricted to the notification as construed by him. So it should not be extended to the notification before us which we have construed in a different manner. We have already quoted the impugned notification. It is clear from the text of the notification that it commences to operate from 1st August, 1958. It is the date on which it was published in the Gazette. It does not show that it will come into effect from any back date. Clause (a) of the notification authorises levy of tax on raw hides and skins from 1st August, 1958, and not from any back date. Similarly, clause (c) authorises levy of tax on cotton yarn from 1st August, 1958, and not from any back date. Only clause (b) authorises levy of tax on dressed hides and skins from a back date, namely, 30th November, 1957. In respect of clauses (a) and (c) it commences from 1st August, 1958. So the notificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....secondary in importance. If the exemptions are found to be invalid, the presumption is that the Legislature would still have intended that the rest of the statute should be enforced." The question of severability arose in the Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar[1955] 6 S.T.C. 446 at p. 494 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 661 at p. 688. At page 688 of the report it was said: "This being the position the question arises whether the Act is bad in toto or is bad only in so far as it offends the provisions of article 286 as construed above. It appears to us that the Act imposes tax on subjects divisible in their nature but does not exclude in express terms subjects exempted by the Constitution. In such a situation the Act need not be declared wholly ultra vires and void, for it is feasible to separate taxes levied on authorised subjects from those levied on exempted subjects and to exclude the latter in the assessment of the tax. In these circumstances it is difficult to say that the scheme of taxing inter-State sales forms such an integral part of the entire scheme of taxation on sales or purchases of goods as to be inextricably interwoven with it. There is no reason to presume that had ....