Supreme Court of India
State Of Gujarat And Another vs Kasturchand Chhotalal Shah on 7 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: AIR1991SC695, JT1991(5)SC419, 1991SUPP(2)SCC345, [1991]80STC394(SC), AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 695, 1991 (2) SCC(SUPP) 345, (1991) 5 JT 419 (SC), 1991 SCC (SUPP) 2 345, 1991 (5) JT 419, (1991) 1 GUJ LH 382, (1991) 80 STC 394
Author: S. Ranganathan
Bench: S. Ranganathan, K. Ramaswamy
JUDGMENT S. Ranganathan, J.
1. This is an appeal by the State of Gujarat from a judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dt/- 24-7-73 by which the High Court, following an earlier decision of the Court in Patel Ramjibhai Danabhai v. Tambe, Sales-tax Officer ILR 1970 Guj 1020 came to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 33(6) of the Bombay Sales-tax Act, 1959 were ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. It is pointed out on behalf of the State that the above decision of the Gujarat High Court has subsequently been reversed by the judgment of a five-Judge Bench of this Court in a batch of appeals, reported as State of Gujarat v. Patel Ranjibhai Dhanbhai . In view of the above-cited decision of this Court, the appeal has to be allowed.
2. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that this Court, while deciding State of Gujarat v. Patel Ranjibhai , had not issued, notices to the Advocates General of the States of Bombay and Gujarat as required by the provisions of Section 100 read with Order XXVII-A of the CPC. In fact we do not know whether any such notices had been issued or not. But we are not able to appreciate as to what consequences are said to follow even if this averment is correct. We may point out that the provisions cited are only intended to put the concerned State Governments on notice where it is not a party to a proceeding in which the validity of a State law is questioned. Compliance with the literal terms thereof is purely academic where, as here, the State Governments concerned were themselves parties and were duly represented. before this Court. These considerations apart, the binding effect of the decision of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Ranjibhai (supra) cannot be ignored by this Bench merely because there was some procedure of irregularity (assuming that there had been such a lapse) of the nature mentioned.
3. We, therefore, allow this appeal following the decision of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Ranjibhai . The Sales Tax Officer will be at liberty to take further action Under Section 33(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act in accordance with law. However, there will be no order as to costs.