1. Challenge to notifications fixing rates under Section 5(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act in a Union Territory. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1764
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B.Majmudar : S.P.Bharucha
Sushil Flour Dal And Oil Mills
Versus
Chief Commissioner
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 10/29/96
Important Points
The Administrator of a Union Territory is the medium through which the President exercises administrative functions; therefore, actions taken by the Administrator under Article 239 of the Constitution do not constitute an impermissible delegation of power by the Central Government.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Union Territories Administration
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Punjab General Sales Tax Act - Section 5(1) - Constitution of India - Part VIII and Article 239 - General Clauses Act - Section 3(8) - Notifications fixing tax rates issued by Administrator of Union Territory - Challenge on grounds of impermissible delegation of power - Whether Central Government can delegate legislative power to the Administrator - Under Part VIII of the Constitution, power to administer Union Territories vests in the President, exercised directly or through an Administrator - Administrator is the medium through which the President exercises the function of administering Union Territories - In relation to the administration of Union Territories, the Central Government means the Administrator acting within the scope of authority given under Article 239 of the Constitution - No delegation of power occurs when the Administrator issues such notifications. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed challenging notifications fixing rates under the relevant sales tax act for a Union Territory. The notifications were issued by the Administrator of the territory. The challenge was initially upheld by a Single Judge on the basis that the Central Government could not further delegate its power to the Administrator, but this was subsequently reversed by a Division Bench.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no delegation of power as the Administrator is the medium through which the President exercises administrative functions in Union Territories.
Issues: Whether the issuance of notifications by the Administrator of a Union Territory constitutes an illegal delegation of power by the Central Government.
Ratio Decidendi: Pursuant to Part VIII of the Constitution and Section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act, the Administrator of a Union Territory is the designated authority through whom the President administers the territory, and for such purposes, the Administrator is considered the Central Government.
Result: Appeals are dismissed.
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed challenging notifications fixing rates under the relevant sales tax act for a Union Territory. The notifications were issued by the Administrator of the territory. The challenge was initially upheld by a Single Judge on the basis that the Central Government could not further delegate its power to the Administrator, but this was subsequently reversed by a Division Bench.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no delegation of power as the Administrator is the medium through which the President exercises administrative functions in Union Territories.
Issues: Whether the issuance of notifications by the Administrator of a Union Territory constitutes an illegal delegation of power by the Central Government.
Ratio Decidendi: Pursuant to Part VIII of the Constitution and Section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act, the Administrator of a Union Territory is the designated authority through whom the President administers the territory, and for such purposes, the Administrator is considered the Central Government.
Result: Appeals are dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Central Government could further delegate legislative power to the Administrator of a Union Territory to issue notifications. (Para 3 )
3. The Administrator is the medium through which the President administers Union Territories, and the General Clauses Act defines Central Government as the Administrator. (Para 4 )
4. For Union Territory administration, the Central Government means the Administrator acting within the scope of authority under Article 239 of the Constitution. (Para 4 )
5. Appeals dismissed. (Para 5 )
6. Does the issuance of notifications by an Administrator of a Union Territory constitute an impermissible sub-delegation of power by the Central Government?
No. The Administrator is the medium through which the President exercises the function of administering Union Territories, and under Section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act, the Central Government in relation to Union Territories means the Administrator. (Para 4 )
7. How is the term Central Government interpreted regarding the administration of Union Territories?
Pursuant to Section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act, the Central Government means the Administrator of the Union Territory acting within the scope of authority given under Article 239 of the Constitution. (Para 4 )
(1) THE respondents were represented. They have been given notice by the Registry of the designation of their Advocate-on-Record as Senior Counsel and asked to make alternative arrangements. The notice was issued on 30-8-1996 and its service may be presumed. The respondents do not appear.
(2) THE appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging notifications fixing the rate under Section 5(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act in relation to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The notifications were issued by the Administrator (Chief Commissioner) of the territory. The challenge was upheld by the learned Single Judge but it failed in appeal. It is the judgment under appeal which is questioned before us.
(3) THE argument which found favour with the learned Single Judge was this: the impugned notifications, having been issued by a delegate of the Central Government, were bad because the Central Government could not further delegate its power to the Administrator. The learned Single Judge took the view that the Central Government having itself been delegated legislative power under the said Act, it could not further delegate it to the Administrator.
(4) THE Division Bench was, in our view, right in pointing out that there was no delegation of power. Under Part VIII of the Constitution the power to administer the Union Territories vested in the President and the President could exercise that power directly or through an Administrator appointed by him. An Administrator so appointed was the medium through which the President exercised the function of administering the Union Territories. Reliance was also placed by the Division Bench, and rightly, upon Section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act which provides that in relation to the administration of the Union Territories, the Central Government means the Administrator thereof acting within the scope of the authority given to him under Article 239 of the Constitution. No amplification of this position seems to be necessary.
(5) THE appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs.
