TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (11) TMI 623
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d with effect from August 1, 1985. The relevant entry of the said notification is as under: "All varieties of textiles, namely cotton, woollen or artificial silk including rayon or nylon and other man-made or synthetic fabrics, manufactured in mills or powerlooms and hosiery cloth in lengths and including fabrics coated with or impregnated with PVC or cellulose derivatives (whether or not manufactured in mills or powerlooms)." Section 3(1) of the Act, which is the charging section under which the above notification was issued is as under: "3. Levy of tax.-(1) There shall be levied and collected a tax on entry of goods specified in the First Schedule into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein, at such rates not exceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating or impregnating fabric with preparations of cellulose derivatives or other plastic materials. It is not normally understood as textile in trade parlance. It was not an item of the Schedule. Therefore, it did not come within the scope of item No. 1 of the Schedule under the Entry Tax Act and no entry tax was made exigible thereon. The relevant entry which was the subject-matter of the dispute before the Division Bench was entry No. 1 of the Schedule which was substituted by Act No. 38 of 1984 with effect from April 1, 1983 was as under: "All varieties of textiles, namely, cotton woollen or artificial silk including rayon or nylon and other man-made or synthetic fabrics), manufactured in mills or powerlooms and hosiery cloth in lengt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Court on the ground that the said Act is unenforceable for want of President of India assent as required under article 304(b) of the Constitution of India. This Court in the case of Avinyl Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [1998] 109 STC 26 has upheld the validity and it is stated that the matter is pending before the apex Court and leave has been granted. As stated above the notification dated November 18, 1992 published in Karnataka Gazette on November 21, 1992 was substituted with effect from August 1, 1985. Section 3(1) at that time has not empowered the State Government to issue a notification with retrospective effect. That amendment was made in section 3(1) by Act No. 8 of 1993. Had it been an simple amendment of conferring ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Ordinance No. 13 of 1992 was promulgated on September 30, 1992 by which it was proposed that the words "retrospectively or prospectively by the State Government by notification and different dates" are substituted for the words "by the State Government by notification from time to time". This Ordinance was published on September 30, 1992. It appears that the Ordinance lapsed and therefore Act No. 8 of 1993 was enacted. This Act itself comes into force on September 30, 1992, the date on which Ordinance No. 13 of 1992 was issued. The State Government as a delegated authority issued the notification on November 18, 1992 when the Ordinance No. 13 of 1992 was in force. If the ordinance lapsed, the notification issued thereunder normally would ....