SURAJ BHAN HARI SHANKER Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. They raise common points and can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) By means of these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the levy of sales tax on their turnover of Gur in the assessment year 1956-57. Gur was exempt from the levy of sales tax under Section 4 of that Act prior to the 1st of April 1956. The State legislature by U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act XIX of 1955 deleted Gur from Section 4 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The effect of deletion of Gur from that section was that Gur no longer remained an exempted commodity and became liable to tax. Accordingly by the impugned assessment orders, tax was levied in respect of the turnover of Gur also as stated above.

(3.) Two points have been raised before me in these writ petitions by Mr. Misra learned counsel for the petitioners. The first point taken by learned counsel is that Gur was an essential commodity as declared by the Essential Goods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax), Act, 1952. Having regard to this declaration, it became necessary by reason of Article 286 (3) of the Constitution that a State law imposing or authorising the imposition of tax on such a commodity could not have effect "unless it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent". U. P. Act XIX of 1956, which had the effect of imposing tax on Gur by removing Gur from the list of commodities which were exempt from tax came into force on the 1st of April 1956. It was reserved for the assent of the President, but the assent was received only on the 9th of May 1956. The point made by Mr. Misra is that as the assent was received only on the 9th of May 1956, the Act could, it at all, operate only from that date in respect of a commodity like Gur and not from an earlier date, namely 1st April 1956. I see no force at all in this submission. All that is required fay Article 286 (3) is that the State legislation in respect of a particular kind of goods mentioned in that Act should have been reserved for the assent of the President and that it should have .received his assent. The date on which the assent is received is wholly immaterial. The Act of the State legislature would operate from the date mentioned in that Act as the date of its operation. The operation will not be postponed to the date of the signature or assent of the President. To my mind, here there is no question of the prospectivity or retrospectl-vity of the date of the assent of the President. The date of the assent only makes the particular enactment operative in regard to particular commodities. Bate of the assent has nothing whatsoever to do with the date of the operation of the Act. Mr. Misra has not cited any authority in support of his submission, nor has he invited my attention to any law or other provision in support of his contention. I see no force in this submission and I reject it.