Judgment

RAMASWAMI, J.: This appeal is brought by special leave, from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated April 3, 1965 in Civil Writ Petition No. 401 of 1963.

2. The respondent the Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Company ) did not file any quarterly return of its sales for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 as required by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (Act No. XXIX of 1954), hereinafter referred to as the Act . Appellant No. 2, the Sales Tax Officer, Udaipur treated this default as a default of the respondent company under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Sec. 7 of the Act and, after giving notice to the Company, imposed penalty under Cls. (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act. By his orders dated December 19, 1956 and January 25, 1957, the Sales Tax Officer impose a penalty of Rs. 5,000 in respect of the assessment year 1955-56 and a penalty of Rs. 10,000 in respect of the assessment year 1956-57. Thereafter, on October 23, 1968 the Company moved the Rajasthan High Court for the grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the two orders of the Sales Tax Officer dated December 19, 1956 and January 25, 1967. The contention on behalf of the Company was that during the material period, i. e., from April 1, 1955 to July 31, 1956 there were in existence no rules validly made under Section 26 (5) of the Act. The Writ Petition was allowed by the Rajasthan High Court by its judgment dated April 3, 1965 and the orders imposing the penalties on the Company were quashed on the ground that the imposition of penalty was legal as it contravened Article 20 (1) of the Constitution. The view taken by the High Court was that the Rules framed initially were not valid for the purpose of imposing penalties and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules Validating Ordinance No. 5 of 1959 and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules Validating Act No. 43 of 1959 could not be effective for the purpose of imposing penalty under Section 16 of the Act since the Rules could not be given retrospective effect.

3. The Act received the assent of the President on December 22, 1954 but it came into force on April 1, 1955 under a notification of the State Government under Section 1 (3) of the Act. The relevant provisions of the Act read as follows:-

"7. Submission of returns.- (1) Every dealer liable to pay tax shall furnish returns of his turnover for the prescribed periods in the prescribed form, in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, to such authority as may be prescribed.

(2) Every such return shall be accompanied by a Treasury receipt or receipt of any bank authorised to receive money on behalf of the Government, showing the deposit of the full amount of tax due on the basis of return in the Government Treasury or bank concerned.

(3) If any dealer discovers any omission, error, or wrong statement in any returns furnished by him under sub-section (1), he may furnish a revised return in the prescribed manner at any time before the assessment is made."

"16. Offences, Penalties and Prosecutions, etc.

(1) If any person -

(a) a has without reasonable cause failed to get himself registered as required by sub-section (1) of Section 6 within the time prescribed; or

(b) has without reasonable cause failed to pay the tax due within the time allowed; or

(c) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of his turnover, or failed to furnish it within file time allowed; or

..............................

the assessing authority may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, in the case referred to in clause (a), in addition to the fee payable by him, a sum not exceeding Rs. 50, and in case referred to in clause (b), in addition to the amongst payable by him, a sum not exceeding half of that amount, and that in cases referred to in Clauses (c) and (d), in addition to the tax payable by him, a sum not exceeding half the amount of tax determined: . . .. . ... . . ... "

"26. Power to make rules.