SIALKOT SILK STORES Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (Act 31 of 1966), the appointed day is 1st November, 1966. Section 2 (f) of that Act says that the "existing State of Punjab" means the State of Punjab as existing immediately before the appointed day, that is to say, before 1st November, 1966. The Union Territory of Chandigarh is one of the successor States, according to Section 2 (m) of that Act, to the "existing State of Punjab. "

(2.) IN the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (Punjab Act 46 of 1948), Sub-section (2) of Section 6 provides that the State Government, after giving by notification not less than three months' notice of its intention so to do, may by like notification add to or delete from Schedule B and thereupon Schedule B shall be deemed to be amended accordingly. Schedule B to this Act enumerates items on which no tax is payable in the terms and subject to the conditions of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the same Act. The "existing State of Punjab" on 24th August, 1966, published a notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of Punjab Act 46 of 1948 giving notice of its intention to amend item 30 in Schedule B to that Act. The notice obviously had to be of three months and, therefore, the date on which it had to expire was 24th November, 1966. So the "existing State of Punjab" could not fulfil its intention under that notification because in the meantime on and from 1st November, 1966, the "existing State of Punjab" was reorganised and one of the successor States to it has been the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Thus the time of three months requisite for the notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of Punjab Act 46 of 1948 expired after the coming into existence of the Union Territory of Chandigarh as one of the successor States to the "existing State of Punjab".

(3.) ON 4th January, 1968, the Chief Commissioner of the Union Territory of Chandigarh published a notification, in the Chandigarh Administration Gazette (Extraordinary), of 4th January, 1968, amending item 30 in Schedule B to Punjab Act 46 of 1948 pursuant to the notice already issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of that Act by the "existing State of Punjab". The Chief Commissioner of the Union Territory of Chandigarh did not issue a fresh notification giving three months' notice in the terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of that Act of the intention of the Chandigarh Administration to amend item 30 in Schedule B to that Act. It is the legality and constitutional vires of this last-mentioned notification issued by the Chief Commissioner of the Union Territory of Chandigarh that is the subject of challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the petitioner, Sialkot Silk Stores of Chandigarh. In the Union Territory of Chandigarh, in view of Section 88 of the Reorganisation Act, Punjab Act 46 of 1948 continues to be the law in force. It has been one of the contentions on the side of the petitioner that in view of that provision it was the Central Government which could proceed to issue notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of Punjab Act 46 of 1948 and not the Chief Commissioner of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, but to that the complete reply in the return of the respondent is that by Notification No. S. O. 3269 of 1st November, 1966, the Central Government has delegated its powers to the Chief Commissioner of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. So this contention obviously cannot prevail.