TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (9) TMI 301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concerned was an independent sovereign State. In the city of Bangalore which was part of the princely State of Mysore, there was a public limited company called as Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bangalore Company) incorporated and functioning from 1923 and was inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing of cotton textiles. 3. In the integration of States, that ensued after independence the native State of Mysore merged and became part of the Indian Union and that from 26-1-1950, on which day the Constitution of the Country came into force, that State became a Part-B State of the Indian Union, which position continued till the enlarged Mysore State now called as Karnata....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Part B State Laws Act) that came into force on 1-4-1951, extended the 1923 Act to all Part-B States except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 7. Section 3 of the 1953 Act provided for imposition of a Cotton Cess. Section 4 provided for the constitution of a committee called the Indian Central Cotton Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) to administer the Act. The Committee constituted in 1923 was dissolved by the Central Government with effect from 1-4-1966 by its Notification No. 882, dated 18-3-1966 on which day another enactment called the Produce Cess Act, 1966 (Central Act No. 15 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the 1966 Act) came into force. 8. In exercise of the powe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thousands, two hundred and twenty five only) covering the period from 16-3-1923 to 15-3-1943 (i.e., for 20 years at ₹ 7,911-25 per year). Total Cotton Cess due from you, from 16-3-1923 to 31-3-1966 is ₹ 3,40,453-50 (Rupees Three lakhs forty thousand four hundred and fifty three and paise fifty only). Necessary arrangements may please be made to pay this amount at an early date." In this petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid demand notice on a large number of grounds. But, the three important grounds on which they are challenged will be noticed by me and dealt in due course. 10. In a common return, the respondents have sought to sustain the demands principally on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Mysore from 1-4-1951 only. Before the 1923 Act became operational in the erstwhile State of Mysore, that is for any period prior to 31-3-1951, no cess could be recovered from the petitioner or its predecessor in interest also. In this view, the demand made against the petitioner for the period prior to 31-3-1951 is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. 15. Sri. Jagadeesan has next contended that the 1923 Act was a temporary enactment that stood repealed on 31-3-1966 without a saving clause and, therefore, it was impermissible for the Superintendent to collect any cess that had not earlier been collected. 16. Sri. Bhat had urged that the 1923 Act was not a temporary but was a permanent measure and on its repeal the repeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mentioned and not otherwise (see page 6, Craies on Statute Law, 6th Edition). Hence, the 1923 Act is a perpetual measure on the repeal of which Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would apply. But, even here only the amounts if any due from 1-4-1951 alone can be recovered. However, on the view, I propose to take on the next question, it is not necessary to examine the liability of the petition from 1-4-1951, also. 19. Sri Jagadeesan has contended that the officers appointed under the 1966 Act from 1969 cannot recover the amounts prior to their appointment, even if they are legally recoverable from the petitioner. 20. Sri Bhat has urged that the officers appointed under the 1966 Act were competent to recover the outstanding amou....