Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13) On this Writ Petition, an order of admission was made on 24th June, 1997. The Respondents were given time to file affidavit and an affidavit in reply has been filed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (Profession Tax), Pune Zone, Pune.

14) It is stated in this affidavit that prior to the amendment made in the Act of 1962, the scheme of the Act was to levy tax on the basis of weight of the sugarcane. There were J.V.Salunke,PA WP.2060.1997+.Judgment.doc disparities in prices of sugarcane paid by Sakhar Karkhanas to the cultivator in different areas. Though the prices were above the support price and therefore in any area where the prices were paid less to the cultivator, the Karkhana had to bear the same burden of tax as compared to the Karkhanas which pay higher prices for sugarcane. In order to remove disparity and ensure social justice, the amendments were carried out from 1 st October, 1995 to change the structure of taxation. Though it is stated that the Petitioner has not challenged the legality and validity of the amended provisions, it is apparent that after the affidavit was filed, one opposing admission on 20th June, 1997 and the other on 13th April, 2010, the amendments have been made to the Writ Petition. Thus, the validity of the amended provisions has also been challenged. The Commissioner asserts that the field of legislation in respect of the levy of tax on sale or purchase of goods is set out in Entry 54 of List II of the 7 th Schedule to the Constitution of India. The Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 is enacted by the legislature for levy of Sales Tax on goods. Entry 44 of Schedule 'A' of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 gives exemption to the levy of tax on sale and purchase of sugarcane. The tax on purchase of the sugarcane is under the Act of 1962. It is therefore within the field of legislation provided by Item No. 54 of the List II of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution of India.

33) The other argument also need not detain us. That is that amendments which have been made with effect from 1 st October, 1995 by Ordinance VI of 1998 issued on 1 st May, 1998 are also ultra vires the Act. According to the Petitioners, the Ordinance was issued solely with a purpose of frustrating a J.V.Salunke,PA WP.2060.1997+.Judgment.doc challenge to the provisions brought in the law from 1 st October, 1995. This argument has no substance, simply because an Act of the competent legislature can be amended from time to time. It is presumed also in matters of imposition of tax that the legislature understands and appreciates the economic realities. It performs a balancing act and while plugging loopholes and removing defects and lacunas, it has full freedom to make changes in the tax structure or in the process of assessment and collection of tax. Therefore and in the absence of any constitutional prohibition, the legislature was not prevented from amending the Act even during the pendency of these Petitions. Secondly, the executive is a sole Judge of the urgency and if it is required to act expeditiously to subserve larger public interest, then, it is equally empowered to issue an Ordinance. This contention therefore must be negatived.