Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. In order to appreciate the controversy it would be proper to give brief history of the amendments, which are under challenge in the present writ petition(s). The Parliament, by way of the Constitution (46th Amendment) Act, 1982, amended Article. 366 of the Constitution of India by way of adding Clause 29-A to Article 366 of the Constitution.

Clause 29-A of Article 366 reads as under:

29-A. 'Tax on the sale or purchase of goods"-includes.
(a)Aa tax on the transfer otherwise than in pursuance of a contact of property in any goods for cash, deferred payment or otherwise valuable consideration.

5. The corresponding amendments in Articles 269 and 286 were also made by this 46th Constitutional Amendment. The State Government thereafter, by the 'Finance Act of 1987 (Act No. 87 of 1987), which will hereinafter be refereed as the 'Finance Act, 1987', in order to give effect to the financial proposal of the State Government for the financial year 1987-88, made certain other changes and amended the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. By this amendment, definition of the expression 'contract' was amended and the definitions of sale and 'turn-over' were substituted for the existing definitions. Two proviso were also substituted to the definition of 'sale" comprised in Clause 2 (p) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The State Government, also, by a notification dated may 28,1987 (EX.2) made certain amendments in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955. After the amendment in the Act and the Rules, the State Government vide notification EX.3 dated May 28, 1983, notified the rate of tax payable by a contractor on his turnover of the works contract. According to this notification, rate of tax on work contract relating to any kind of construction was notified as 2% while with respect to works contract relating to any kind of installation, fittings-out, improvement, overhaul or repair, was notified at 4%. The State Government again, by a notification EX.4 dated March 8,1988, notified the rates of tax payable by the contractor on his turn-over of the works contract as specified in coulum 2 of the list, on the articles mentioned in the list. The State Government, again, by Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act No. 9 of 1988) further amended the Sales Tax Act of 1954. Various amendments were made by this Amendment Act, which are challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. The State Government, in pursuance to these amendments made in the various provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, issued notification EX. 6 dated 5th September 1988 and again notified the rate of tax payable by a contractor on his turnover of the works contract relating to dyeing, printing, processing and similar activities. The State Government again, by Rajasthan Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1958 (Act No. 13 of 1988) further amended the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. This Act received the assent of the Governor on 15th October 1988. The State Government, thereafter, issued notification EX. 8 dated November 7,1988 and granted exemption from the tax payable by the dealer in respect of the goods involved in the execution of the first works contract where the value of the goods involved does not exceed 15% of the sale-price of the works contract. Various writ petitions were filed before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of the Constitutional 46th Amendment and the Supreme Court, in the case of Builder's Association of India v. Union of India , vide its judgments dated 31st march, 1989, up-held the validity of the Constitutional 46th Amendment and held as undcr:

GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPTT. 
  No F.16(22) Tax/CCT/84/2240                                          dated 2.8.1989 
     All Dy. Commissioners (Adm./A.E./Appeals/Revisions).
     All Commercial Taxes Officers.
     All Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officers. 


  

Sub:--Levy of Sales Tax on works Contracts in Rajasthan.
1.0 In pursuance of 46th Amendment in the Constitution, the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was amended from 1st April, 1987 by Act 7 of 1987. For levying tax on works contracts, the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were also amended and a notification providing for rate of tax on such. contracts was issued on 28.5.1987.

7. Now we propose to take the points raised. by the petitioner which remain to be decided.

I) The petitioner has challenged the validity of Article 366(29-A) of the Constitution of India on various grounds which were not taken note of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of Builders Association of India v. Union of India . The contention of the learned Counsel for the provisions of Article 366(29-A) of the Constitution of India has not been judged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court...these points and no finding has been given by the Supreme Court on these points and, therefore, this Court is competent to judge the validity of the provision of Article 366(29-A) of the Constitution on these points. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied-upon the judgment of Good Year India Limited and Ors. v. The State of Haryana and Ors. 1989 (31) STL 49 (SC), wherein it has been held that precedent is an authority only for the point it actually decides and not for other which even logically follows from it and a decision on a question which has not been argued cannot be treated as a precedent. We have gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Good Year India Limited and others' case but in our view that judgment does not apply to the present case. So far as the contention Which has not been raised before the Court and no finding has been given by the Court on those points, these points can be agitated and can be decided by the Court, but in the present case the validity of the provisions of Article 366(29-A) of the Constitution of India was under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, after considering the provisions of Article 366(29-A), up-held the validity of the 46th Amendment. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court has up-held the validity of the 46th Amendment of the Constitution, this court is not expected to again go into and decide the question whether the 46th Amendment is a valid piece of legislation or not. Taking into account the other grounds of attack questioning the validity, in our view, this Court cannot, again, judge the validity of the provisions of Article 366(29-A) of the Constitution, The 46th Amendment of the Constitution is, thus, perfectly legal and valid.