TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (2) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The stage at which these items are leviable to tax has been mentioned in Schedule D annexed to the Act, according to which the oil seeds including the above items will be liable to purchase tax in the hands of the last dealer, liable to pay tax under the Act. Under section 31 of the Act the State Government is competent, by issuing a notification, to add to, or delete from Schedule C, any goods by giving 20 days notice of its intention to do so. Similarly, the State Government in exercise of its power under section 5(3)(b) of the Act can, by issuing a necessary notification, amend Schedule D after giving 20 days notice of its intention to do so. 2.. The Government of Punjab issued draft notification, annexure P-1 on August 13, 1998 to am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....draft notifications, the date was later on changed to August 13, 1998 and thus it is not a case of retrospective legislation. 4.. Learned counsel for the petitioner by reference to notifications, annexures P-3 and P-4, submitted that these were published in the Punjab Government Gazette on October 22, 1998 but the same have been made operative/effective from a retrospective date. The submission of the learned counsel in other words is that the State Government in exercise of powers delegated to it by the Legislature, cannot amend the Schedules C and D from a date prior to the publication of the final notification unless specifically empowered to do so by the Act. Learned counsel in support of his submission, relied upon Shashi Kant Vohra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s regards the legal position on this point, a Division Bench of this Court in Shashi Kant Vohra's case [1991] 82 STC 148, held as under: "The law, thus, draws a distinction between the powers of the Legislature and the authority which exercises only delegated powers of legislation. The delegatee cannot claim same sovereign authority as the Legislature itself." 7.. In M.C. Ponnoose's case [1970] 75 ITR 174 (SC); AIR 1970 SC 385, the Kerala Government issued a notification dated August 14, 1963, which was published in the Gazette dated August 20, 1963. By the said notification, various revenue officials including the Taluk Tahsildar were authorised to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer. In the concluding portion of the notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it cannot give retrospective effect to the amendment, but the amendment so made would not become invalid merely because retrospective effect has been given to it, even though not permissible. The effect of undoing that action of the State Government would be that the retrospective part of the operation alone, of such notifications would be ineffective. There is no dispute that the petitioner is importing the oil-seeds in question from outside the State of Punjab and as such these oil-seeds were not liable to tax on its turnover as the sale of these goods was not liable to tax. Purchases were exempt from tax as these oil-seeds were not purchased in Punjab State, but by virtue of these notifications, if the amendments are made operative from ....