1. Validity of provisional assessments under Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 — applicability of Rule 21 following the deletion of Section 18. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1991 Supreme(SC) 581
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.D.Ojha : S.Ranganathan : V.Ramaswami
Duroflex Coir Industries
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Assessment Of Sales Tax
Case No. : 6560 , 6561 of 1991
Date of Decision : 10/25/91
The deletion of a statutory section does not automatically render the rules framed under it otiose, particularly when the procedural application of those rules has been consistently followed and upheld by the courts.
Headnote:(A) General Sales Tax Act - Section 18 and Rule 21 - Provisional assessments - Deletion of Section 18 - Validity of sub-rules (7) to (14) of Rule 21 - Petitioner contended that since the section providing for provisional assessments was deleted, the corresponding sub-rules framed to give effect to that scheme should be treated as otiose - Court held that the reasoning of the lower court upholding the validity of such assessments is correct - Matter is primarily procedural and the position has been consistently followed since 1984 - No reason to interfere with the existing position. (Paras 1, 2)
Facts of the case:
A challenge was made against the validity of provisional assessments. The petitioner argued that the deletion of the statutory section providing for provisional assessments rendered the associated rules framed for implementing those assessments redundant and void.
Findings of Court:
The court agreed with the lower court's conclusion that the rules remained valid and the provisional assessments were correct.
Issues: Whether the deletion of the statutory section providing for provisional assessments rendered the rules framed under it otiose.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the procedural validity of the assessments had been established and followed for several years, and there was no justification to disturb this settled position.
Result: Special leave petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Deletion of Section 18 — contention that sub-rules (7) to (14) of Rule 21, framed under said section, became otiose. (Para 1 )
3. Agreement with High Court reasoning — procedural nature of the issue — consistency of the legal position followed in the state since 1984. (Para 2 )
4. Deletion of a statutory section does not necessarily render rules framed under it otiose, especially where procedural consistency is established by precedent. (Para 2 )
5. Special leave petitions dismissed — no order as to costs. (Para 2 )
6. Does the deletion of a statutory section automatically render rules framed under that section otiose?
Not necessarily. The court upheld the validity of provisional assessments under Rule 21 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, despite the deletion of Section 18, following established judicial precedent. (Para 1 , 2 )
7. What is the court's approach toward settled procedural positions based on precedent?
The court is reluctant to disturb a settled procedural position that has been consistently followed in a state since the delivery of a specific judicial precedent. (Para 2 )
(1) THE petitioner challenges the correctness of the judgment of the Kerala High court which upheld the validity of provisional assessments made under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 as amended in 1982. The main point made by the petitioner was that, since Section 18 of the Act which provided for provisional assessments had been deleted, sub- rules (7 to (14 of Rule 21 which had earlier been framed to give effect to the scheme of provisional assessments under Section 18 should also be treated as having become otiose and should have been deleted. Learned counsel for the petitioner confined himself before us to a challenge to sub-rule (9 of Rule 21.
(2) THE above point has been decided against the petitioner by the High court following an earlier judgment reported in Asoka Oil Mills v. STO 1 . We have perused the judgment of the High court and heard counsel at some length. We are in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the High court. Moreover, this is a point more or less of procedure and the decision above referred to is being followed in the State of Kerala since 1984 when the above judgment was delivered. There is no reason to disturb this position. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere and we dismiss the special leave petitions. We, however, make no order as to costs.
