TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (12) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der: "Agricultural implements but not including pumping sets, threshers and discs." It is plain and indeed not disputed on behalf of the respondents that retrospectivity has been given to the amendment with effect from 1st May, 1949, when the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, came into force. 2.. The question being primarily legal, the facts giving rise thereto pale into insignificance. The briefest reference thereto consequently suffices. Messrs. Bharat Engineering Company carry on the business of sale and manufacture of agricultural implements at Karnal including therein threshers and disc harrows. The petitioner-firm is a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. They are primarily aggrieved by the order of the Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and harrows in which the petitioner-firm deals were undoubtedly within the ambit of the said term till they have been expressly excluded therefrom by the amendment. The primary contention, therefore, was that the long period of retrospectivity given to the amendment was one of the major factors in making it unreasonable and arbitrary and, therefore, within the mischief of being violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. Mr. Jhingan was, however, fair enough to concede that the mere length of time by itself was not necessarily enough to render the retrospectivity of a taxing statute void on this ground. 4.. An ancillary but nevertheless forceful contention was also raised on behalf of the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bengal Paper Mill Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta[1976] 38 S.T.C. 163. However, it appears to me as plain that their Lordships of the Supreme Court have equally sanctified an altogether fresh levy of tax with retrospective effect if the legislature is otherwise competent to enact the same. Reference in this connection may be made to Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd.A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2037. and, in particular, to two categoric Supreme Court decisions reported in Hira Lal Rattan Lal v. Sales Tax Officer, Section III, Kanpur[1973] 31 S.T.C. 178 (S.C.)., and District Controller of Stores, Northern Railway, Jodhpur v. Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer[1976] 37 S.T.C. 423 (S.C.). The combined reading of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, there is nothing exceptional in the case of the petitioner either on the point of law or any peculiar hardship on a point of fact, which would merit relief on this score. 8. I may now advert to the second argument that both in the case of a fresh levy and in a case of "small repairs", if the period of retrospectivity is a relatively short one, the same may perhaps be condoned, but if it is an inordinately long one, it cannot be allowed to pass the muster of constitutionality. The view aforesaid was sought to be supported on the basis of a passing observation in the Krishnamurthi and Company's case[1973] 31 S.T.C. 190 (S.C.)., whilst their Lordships were viewing a particular statute under challenge. Here again the matter appears to be ....