SHREE HANUMAN MATCH WORKS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVERY law has "promises to keep". The court have to interpret the laws to advance the object of the enactment. The Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act), is one such statute. Section 24A(2) was inserted in it in 1967 "to give some relief to the manufacturing industries in the State" as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons. While examining the controversy at hand, we shall have, therefore, to see whether the relief provided by this section has been curtailed by any action of the executive qua those for whom it was actually meant keeping in view the fact that the industrial spectrum of this State really consists of small-scale units. Rule 46A of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Rules, 1956, was first framed in 1969 to give effect to the legislative mandate in section 24A(2). This rule was substituted by a new set of rules in 1971. It is this rule which is under challenge in these petitions. The gauntlet has been thrown by some "dealers" registered under the Act. The definition of "dealers" includes those who sell taxable goods manufactured, made or processed by them in Assam. In the discussion to follow, we shall also refer to rule 46A as framed in 1969 as old rule 46A, and the impugned provision as new rule 46A. 1A. To understand the challenge in the proper perspective, it would be apposite to first note sections 24 and 24A of the Act, which read as below :

(2.) THIS rule was substituted by new rule 46A by Notification No. FTX. 134/71/13 dated 2nd November, 1971, as published in the Extraordinary Assam Gazette of the same day reading :

(3.) THE challenge to the validity of new rule 46A is on these grounds :