Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. On behalf of the assessees a twofold argument has been advanced in support of their contention that tarpaulins are cotton fabrics. In the first place, it is urged that having regard to the enlarged definition of "cotton fabrics" in item 19 of the First Schedule to the Excise Act, as amended retrospectively with effect from 1st March, 1955, the legislative mandate must be carried out by substituting the amended definition in the statute book and should be read as if it is was all along there at all the relevant times including that of the present assessment. Secondly, it was urged that since entry 37 is referential legislation, on matter of principle and authority, the amended definition must be incorporated in entry 37 since that part of the Gujarat Act is supplemental to the incorporated part of the Excises Act and reading the subsequent Act de hors the earlier Act would render that part of subsequent Act wholly ineffective and unworkable. We shall deal with the counter contentions urged on behalf of the State Government by the learned Government Pleader to repel the above contentions at appropriate stages while dealing with the contention of the assessees.

25. This part of the ruling of the court clearly indicates that the Pondicherry legislation was held to be void since it not only applied the Madras Act or the Rules as were in force but also the Act as may be amended in future, and to that extent there was a complete non-application of mind. The immediate succeeding paragraph in the decision of Shelat, J., at page 225 indicates as to whether in cases of referential legislation it is permissible to read the future amendments from the principal Act. The said observation read as under :

27. We are of the opinion that the Gujarat Act contains a policy as we shall presently point out and the policy was clear and precise so as to furnish guidance to the executive to implement them. The contention about abdication of the legislative functions by the State Legislature in trying to incorporate the future amendments in the the Excise Act should, therefore, be rejected.

28. The learned Advocate for the assessees, therefore, urged that since entry 37 is a referential legislation which is supplement to the Excise Act and the Additional Duties to Excise Act, on matter of principle and authority, it must be held that the amendment made in the earlier Act must necessarily be read into the subsequent Act; otherwise the incorporated provision in the subsequent Act would be wholly ineffective and unworkable. In order to decide this contention, therefore, we have to look shortly to what is the history of this referential legislation.

31. It should be further stated for completing the history that this item was again amended by the amending Act, 1980, as stated above. This is shortly the legislative history of this item which has passed through many vicissitudes.

32. Having regard to the legislative history it cannot be a matter of debate and it is not in the larger interest of the State to dispute that the entry pertaining to cotton fabrics in the schedule exempting goods from sales tax is supplemental legislative provision to the Central Sales Tax Act as well as the Excise Act and the Additional Duties of Excise Act. As a matter of fact, there is an integrated scheme evolved in connection with the goods of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce. The wholesome scheme of national integrity in the matter of commerce and trade is sought to be protected and preserved by providing against State intervention which is not always motivated by purely economic and fiscal consideration. Any attempt to divorce these well-connected provisions would have disastrous consequences, the immediate and ultimate implications of which, it is difficult to comprehend. Any attempt therefore to read the exemption provision contained in the Gujarat Act de hors the intimately connected provisions of the Excise Act and the Additional Duties of Excise Act may possibly result in rendering the exemption provisions wholly ineffective and unworkable. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since the referential legislation contained in entry 37 is supplemental to the Excise Act as well as the Additional Duties of Excise Act, the amendments made in the original incorporated provision must necessarily project and must be read as a part of the referential legislation contained in entry 37. The exception specified by the Supreme Court in Narasimhan's case AIR 1975 SC 1835, namely, where the subsequent Act and the previous Act are supplemental to each other, would squarely apply to the present case, and therefore, the incorporated provisions have to be read with all the amendments made in the borrowed provisions from time to time. In that view of the matter, therefore, we must read the enlarged definition as effected by the amending Act of 1980 in the referential legislation contained in entry 37 as if the law was all along the same according to the enlarged definition with effect from 1st March, 1955, and therefore, at all the relevant times of the assessment.