TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (6) TMI 162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....article does not earn deduction under sub-clause (ii) of section 6(3) of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968. The contention of the petitioner is that by the declaration of wheat as declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, Schedule D, which is attached to the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, stands automatically amended with the result that deduction which was contemplated by clause (ii) of section 6(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Act is lost to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, therefore, this automatic addition of an article in Schedule D results in abdication of the legislative powers of the State Legislature and, therefore, the same is illegal. In order to appreciate the above contentio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such goods." The remaining portion of this clause (ii) of sub-section (3) is not relevant for our purpose. It is evident that, according to the above provisions, goods specified in the certificate of registration for use by a dealer in manufacture for sale in Himachal Pradesh were allowed for the purpose of deduction. The petitioner manufactures flour from wheat and, therefore, wheat which was used by him in manufacture of flour in Himachal Pradesh for sale was allowable for deduction under the above referred clause. But this was subject to the condition that wheat should not fall within either Schedule C or Schedule D attached to the Act. If a reference is made to Schedule D, it will be found that it is with reference to the goods whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the article wheat in that schedule, but since the State Government has not preferred to take resort to that course of action, the automatic addition of the article wheat in Schedule D as a result of its being a declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act would be illegal. In support of the above contentions heavy reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in what is popularly known as the Pondicherry case(1), being the case of B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry[1967] 20 S.T.C. 215 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1480., wherein abdication of legislative powers by the Pondicherry Legislature was disapproved by the Supreme Court. It is obvious from what is stated above that as a result of the declaration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arried out or that they would be of a sweeping character or whether they would be suitable in Pondicherry. Obviously, what the Pondicherry Legislature did in that case was total abdication of its legislative power in favour of the Madras Legislature. So far as the present case is concerned, it cannot be said that the Himachal Pradesh Legislature has in any manner abdicated its legislative powers by enacting the above-quoted clause (ii) of section 6(3) which operates automatically so far as Schedule D is concerned. On the contrary, it is found that by enacting clause (ii) of section 6(3), and by putting a general entry No. 3 with regard to "all other declared goods" in Schedule D, the legislature of the State has positively exercised its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons. In the Pondicherry case[1967] 20 S.T.C. 215 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1480., the Pondicherry Legislature had surrendered its whole judgment even regarding the policy and principles which formed the basis of the enactment concerned to an alien authority and, therefore, the court held that it abdicated its legislative functions. Here, in the case before us, we find that the State Legislature has enacted a complete statute and has left the question of the operation of Schedule D to the will of the Central authority because it was the only authority which could legitimately make declarations under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The decision of the Supreme Court in the Pondicherry case[1967] 20 S.T.C. 215 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1....