457
**STATE** **OF** **MADRAS**
### _v._
**S.** **PADMANABHAN** **ETC.**
_January_ 21, 1971
(J. C. SHAH, C.J., K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
_Tamil Nadu General_ _Sales_ _Tax Act,_ _1959-Act_ _coming into force on_
_April_ 1, _1959-Published in Official Gazette on March_ IS, 1959-G.O.
976 _issued_ _under Act, on March_ 28, 1959 _authorising notification under_
_s._ 17 _to_ _be_ _published on April_ 1, 1959- _Notification coming into_ _force_
_on April_ l, _1959-Exemption_ _of_ _fresh_ _fruits under_ _earlier_ _Act_ _taken_
_away under notifioation-Validity_ _of_ _notification whether affected_ _by_ _fact_
_that_ _ii_ _was_ _issued before coming into_ _force_ _of_ _Act._
The respondents were dealers in fruits in Tamil Nadu. Orighally under
the Madras Geaeral Sales Tax Act, 1939 the sale of fruits was liable to
tax. By means of a notification dated March 25, 1954 the sale of fruits
among other commodities was exempted from payment of tax under s. 6
of the Ac:. The 1939 Act was repealed and re-enacted by the Madras
(now Tamil Nadu) General Sales Tax Act. 1959 which was published in
the official gazette on March 18, 1959. The State Government passed
G.O. No. 97oon March 28, 1959 by which the new Act was to come into
force from April 1, 1959. To the G.O. was annexed a not [1] fica ion under
s. 17 of the Act which was directed to be published on April I, 1959 and
was to come into force on that date. According to the notiiica'ion fresh
**fruits ceased to** **be** **exempt from** **tax** **under** **the** **Act.** **Subsequen ly** **fresh**
fruits were again exempted with effect from April 1, 1960. Thus it was
only during the assessment year 1959-60 that the respondents were liable
to pay tax on the sale of fresh fruits under the provisions of the Act. By
the judgment under apoeal the High Court struck down notification No.
976 dated March 28, 1959 which was to take effect fro\11 April 1, 1959 on
the ground that it had been issued before the Act came in'o force. The
respondents were held to be entitled by reason of the saving provision _di_
s. 61 of the Act to invoke the exemption that had bee~ granted under the
earlier Act of 1939. By special leave appeals were filed by the State of
Madras in this Court.
HELD : The mere fact that the imougned notifica'ion bore an earlier
date was of no consequence. Section 53 ( 4) of the Act expressly provide•r
that all notifications under the Ac: shall, unless they are expressed to come
into force on a oarticulac date come 'into force on the day on which they
are published. The notification in question was s'ated to come into 'force
on April 1, 1959. Besides it was published on that very day. Therefore
in terms of cl. (b) of s. 53(4) of the Act the notification had come into
force only on April 1, 1959 and not earlier. No· one had challenged nor
indeed could it be disputed that on April I, 1959 a valid notification could
be issued under s. 17 of the Act. For this reason alone the validity of the
notification must be upheld. [460 B-E]
The appeals must accordingly be allowed.
"I
A
**B**
# c
**D**
E
F
**G**
_Bopa•na Venkateswara/oo_ & _Ors._ v. _Supt. Central_ _.Tail,_ _Hyderabad,_
**H** _State,_ [1953] S.C.R. 905, held inapplicable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 177 to
183 of 1967.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1971 ]3 S.C.R.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order <.lated A
December 28, 1964 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeals
Nos. 354 to 360 of 1963.
_S._ _T. Desai_ and _A._ _V. Rangam,_ for the appellants (in al! the
appeals).
_T._ _A. Ramachandran,_ for the responde,nts (in all the appeals). **B**
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
**Grover,** **J.** These appeals by special leave from a judgment
of the Madras High Court involve the question of the validity of
a notification No. 976 issued under the provisions of the Tamil
Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter called the Act, C
which was to come into force on April 1, 1959.
The respondents are dealers in friuts in the State of Tamil
Nadu. Originally under the Madras General S1les Tax Act, 1939
the sale of fruits was liable to tax. By means of a notification
dated March 25, 1954 the sale of fruits among other commodities
was exempted from payment of tax under s. 6 of that Act. The **D**
1939 Act was repealed and re-enacted by fhe Act which was published in the Official Gazette on March 18, 1959 but which was
to come into force, as stated before, on April .1, 1959. On March
28, 1959 the Government passed G.O. No. 976 which was as
follows:
"The Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which E
will replace the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1939,
will come into force from 1st April 1959. Th~ Governmeru Ji.live examined the question of continuing or
withdrawing the exemption from sales tax or the reductions in rates of sales tax so far granted under the
Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, and such of **F**
them as have been decided to be continued from 1st April
1959 are specified in the notifications annexed to this
order:
2. The notifications annexed to this order will be
published in the Fort. St. George Gazette. The Controller of Stationery and Printing, Madras, is P~quested _to_ G
publish in the notification in the Fort St. George
Gazette, dated the 1st April 1959 without fail.
The notification itself may also be reproduced :
"In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17
of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Madras
Act 1 of 1959) and in supersession of all the notifications issued under s. 6 of the Madras General Sales Tax
Act, 193 9 (Madras Act IX of 19 3 9) the Governor of
II
A
B
## c
D
E
F
G
H
MADRAS _v._ PADMANABHAN _(Grover,_ J.) 45&
Madras hereby makes the exemption in respect of the
tax payable, under .the said Madras General Sales Tax
Act, 1959, o.n the sale or purchase of the goods or class
of goods or by the class or persons or institutions in regard to the whole or part of their turnover specified in
column ( 2) of the Schedule, below subject to the conditions and restrictions, if any, specified in the corresponding entry in column ( 3) thereof.
This notification shall come into force on the 1st
day of April 1959."
In the Schedule which contained the exemptions fresh fruit was
not one of the items which was exempted from tax. In other words.
by virtue of this notification the respondents became liable to pay
tax on the sale of fresh fruit with effect from April 1, 1959. It
may be mentioned that the exemption with regard to fresh fruits
was once again granted with effect from April 1, 1960. It was
only during the assessment year 1959-60 that the respondents were
liable to pay tax on the sale of fresh fruits under the provisions of
the Act. It is unnecessary to refer to the course which the litigation in the shape of writ petitions filed by the respondent took in
the High Court. It would be sufficient to mention that by the
judgment under appeal the High Court struck down. the notification No. 976 dated March 28, 1959 which was to take effect from
April l, 1959. It was held that this notification had been issued
before the Act came into force which amounted to an exercise of
power which did not exist on the date on which the notification
was promulgated. Ir was further held that the respondents were
entitled by reason of the saving provision of s. 61 of the Act to
invoke the ·exemption tliat had been granted under the earlier Act
of 1939.
Section 3 provides for the levy of taxes on sale or purchase of
goods. Under the first proviso to sub-s. (1) of that section it was
expressly laid down that in case of goods specified therein which
included fresh fruits ti)e rate of tax would be 1 % on the turnover
of a de~ler whose [1] total turnover for a year wa~ not less than
Rs. 10,000/-. Under the second proviso the dealers dealing exclusively in one or more of the goods enumera'red in the first proviso except foodgrains, rice products, wheat products and milk
whose total turnover for a year was not more than 30,000/- were·
not to be liable to pay tax under sub-s. (1) Section 17 empowered
the Government by notification to make an exemption or reduction in rate in respect of any tax payable under the Act. Now
what the GovernmPnt did w•~ thM it m•n~ "" orn•r on March
### 28, 1959 in anticipation of the coming into force of the Act "U
April 1, 1959. It decided that a notification be published in the
Fort. St. George Gazette on April 1, 1959 declaring the exemp
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971 J3 S.C.R.
A
tions which would be granted under s. 17 of the Act in supersession of all the previoi.-s notifications issued under s. 6 of the Act
of 1939. It is not disputed that the impugned notification was
actually published in the Gazette on April 1, 1959. On that date
the Act had come into force. We are wholly unable to comprehend how the validity of the notification could be impugned when
it was actually promulgated on the date on which the Act came B
into force. The mere fact that it bore an earlier elate was of no
consequence. Section 53(4) of the Act expressly provided:
'(a) All rules made under this Act shall be published
in the Fort. St. George Gazette, and unless, they are
expressed to come into force on a particular day shall
come into force on the day on which they are so published.
(b) All notifications issued under this· Act, shall, unless they are expressed to come into force on a particular
day, come into force on the day on wh'ch they are published.
The notification in question was stated to com'.: into force on April
1, 1959. Besides, it W<tS published on that very day. Therefore,
## c
D
, in terms of clause (b) it came into force only on April l, 1959
and not earlier. No one has challenged nor indeed it can be
disputed that on April l, 1959 a valid notification could be issued
under s. 17 of the Act. For this reason alone the validity of the E
notification must be upheld.
On behalf of the re~pondents our attention has been invited
to _Boppanna_ _Venka•eswa•aloo_ _&_ _Others_ v. Sup~rintendent, _Cen-_
_tral_ _Jail,_ _H,vderabad_ _Sta_ _[1]_ _e(1)._ The fac•s i1n that case were a'together different and have been discussed in the jud2ment of the
High Court. We consider it wholly unnecessary to refer to them F
, as the point which arose there about the validity of certain orders
made under the Preventive Detention (Second Amendment) Act
1952 was entirely of a different nature and is not apposite for the
purpose of the present case.
In the result the appeals are allowed and the decision of the
High Court is hereby reversed. The writ petitions shall stand dis- G,
missed. In view of the entire circumstances the parties are left
to bear their own costs .
. G.C. _Appeals allowed._
~~(I)~~ ~~[ 1953) S.C.R. 9os.~~
