M ISHWARLAL AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of writ petitions a common question arises. It is agreed that the facts in W. P. No. 558 of 1969 may be noticed. Excepting for the difference in the amount of tax demanded and the names of the petitioners, the broad aspects are common in all the petitions. The petitioner in this writ petition was carrying on business in the name and style of ishwarlal and Company during the assessment year 1967-68. They were dealers in jaggery and gur. They had inter-State transactions to the tune of Rs. 18, 99, 237. 81 and they reported in their returns such inter-State turnover. After due check the turnover relating to inter-State sales was reckoned at Rs. 18, 99, 003. 81. On 14th February, 1969, which notice is challenged in this writ petition, a proposal was made by the respondent to assess the petitioner to central sales tax in respect of such inter-State sales referred to above, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 "notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the State Government may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that in respect of such goods or classes of goods as may be mentioned in the notification, and subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose, no tax under this Act shall be payable by any dealer having his place of business in the State in respect of the sale by him from any such place of business of any such goods in the cource of inter-State trade or commerce or that the tax on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than those specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as may be mentioned in the notification."

(2.) SECTION 8 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, dealing with exemption from tax, says : "subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed, a dealer who deals in the goods specified in the Third Schedule shall not be liable to pay any tax under this Act in respect of such goods. " *

(3.) IT therefore follows that the notification under section 8 (5) continued to be good law till 20th March, 1969. The argument that such a notification or benefit should be deemed to have been impliedly repealed is fallacious, because both the exemption granted under section 8 (5) of the central Sales Tax Act and the amendment as made under Madras Act 2 of 1968 can function without one having an impact on the other. In such circumstances, the doctrine of implied repeal is completely out of question. Even in case where the competent legislative authority passes a later enactment or a statutory rule, it cannot be said that the earlier enactment or rule having the force of law has been repealed by implication unless the provisions of the earlier enactment or rule are plainly repugnant to those of the subsequent enactment or rule and the entire subject-matter of the first is taken away by the second. I am invoking this principle for the purpose of argument and on the assumption that the State Legislature can repeal a notification which has the force of law made by the delegate under section 8 (5 ). I have already stated that this cannot be done. IT is not suggested that the application of the notification granting the exemption during the relevant period has become impossible of compliance. There are no compelling circumstances prompting the court to depart from the existing declared rule of exemption as the words "grant such exemption" have indicated the intent of the parliamentary delegate and thus the object is clear and not in any way ambiguous. As a matter of fact, it is settled that there is a presumption against an implied repeal unless there are positive circumstances which would compel the court to do otherwise. There is no repugnancy between the two situations posed in this case. The legislature or the delegate legislature is presumed to enact laws and grant exemption with a complete knowledge of all the existing laws pertaining to the same subject-vide Municipal Council, Palai v. T. J. Joseph If the local legislature, to augment the revenue of the State, had withdrawn certain exemptions in the matter of intra-State sales, that cannot be the foundation or the reason for the automatic withdrawal of the exemption granted by a contemporaneous competent legislative body under section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act in the matter of inter-State sales. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to a rule prohibiting the respondents from bringing to tax the turnover of inter-State sales of the respective dealers during the period commencing from 1st January, 1968, to 20th March, 1969. The writ petitions are allowed, but there will be no order as to costs.