SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(SC) 682

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RANGANATHAN AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.
State of Gujarat and another, Appellants

Versus

Kasturchand Chhotalal Shah, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No.1233 of 1975

Decided on 7-11-1990.

Headnote:PRECEDENTS#23;PROVISIONS OF STATE ACT DECLARED ULTRA VIRES BY THE SUPREME COURT#23;CONCERNED STATES DULY REPRESENTED#23;BINDING EFFECT OF THE DECISION CANNOT BE IGNORED MERELY BECAUSE OF SOME PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES LIKE NON ISSUANCE OF NOTICES TO STATE GOVERNMENTS - ULTRA VIRES OF STATE ACT#23;BINDING EFFECT OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT CAN NOT BE IGNORED DESPITE SOME PROCEDURAL DEFECTS.

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal by the State of Guiarat from ajudgment 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 S. 33(6) of the Bombay Sales-tax Act, 959 were ultra vires Art. 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 judgement of a five-Judge Bench of this Court in a batch of appeals, reported as State of Gujarat v. Patel Ranjibhai Dhanbhai, (1979) 3 SCR 788. 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 (AIR 1979 SC 1098) (supra), had not issued notices to the Advocates General of the States of Bombay and Gujarat as required by the provisions of S. 100 read with . XXVII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure..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. Ranjibai (AIR 1979 SC 1098) (supra). The Sales Tax Officer will be at liberty to take further action u/ S. 33(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act in accordance with law. However, there will be no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.


For Citation : AIR 1991 SC 695= 1991(5) JT 419 = 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 345 = 1991(80) STC 394.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top