1. The petitioners in these original petitions are registered dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act engaged in the sale of paper. The dispute is against the demand of sales tax at the rate of 8 per cent as against 4 per cent paid by the petitioners for the period commencing from January 2002 to August 2002. Paper is an item taxable under Entry 106 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act at the point of first sale in the State. The rate of tax applicable until December 31, 2001 was 4 per cent. However, the rate of tax on paper was increased from 4 per cent to 8 per cent with effect from January 1, 2002 by the Kerala General Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance No.37 of 2001 published in Kerala Gazette dated December 31, 2001). This Ordinance was followed by the Kerala General Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2002. Thereafter the Ordinance was superseded by the Kerala General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 2002 by which, among other matters, the rate of tax on paper increased by the above referred Ordinance was retained. The petitioner's case is that the petitioners were not aware of the increase in the rate of tax from 4 per cent to 8 per cent by the Ordinances and therefore, they have not remitted tax at the higher rate from January 1, 2002 onwards. According to them, the assessing officers were also not aware of the Ordinances and they did not demand tax by making provisional assessment or provisional demand based on monthly returns filed by the petitioners. Since the petitioners were not aware of the amendment, they have not collected the tax at 8 per cent from January, 2002 onwards and therefore they should not be compelled to pay tax demanded by the assessing officer at higher rate is their contention. As the issue raised in all the Original Petitions are one and the same, all the Original Petitions were consolidated and heard together and hence disposed of by this common judgment.

2. I heard Sri. Mohan Parasaran, and other learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, Sri Sojan James, appearing for the respondents. The first contention raised by the petitioners is against clause (c) of S.3 of the Kerala General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 2002, by which the rate of tax increased from 4 per cent to 8 per cent on paper was given retrospective effect from December 31, 2001 onwards. According to the petitioners, the demand of tax now made by the assessing officers by virtue of S.2 of the Amendment Act which provides for retrospective levy is confiscatory because they have not collected the tax at higher rate being unaware of the amendment. The second point raised is that both the petitioners and the assessing officer were unaware of the Ordinance as there was no publication and therefore, the demand of tax under the Ordinance is also not sustainable. Relying on Art.213(2)(a) of the Constitution, the petitioners have contended that Ordinance No. 37 of 2001 has ceased to be in force from the expiry of six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature because the Ordinance was not laid before the House. The learned Government Pleader contended that the Ordinance does not get invalidated by itself but ceases to operate from the expiry of six weeks from the date of reassembly of the House. Therefore, according to him, Ordinance No. 37 of 2001 was in force from January 1, 2002 onwards and since the said Ordinance ceased to be effective, the Government issued the Kerala General Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2002, ie., Ordinance No. 4 of 2002 which came into force retrospectively from December 31, 2001. The above Ordinance remained valid as long as and until the Kerala General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 2002 came into force. According to him, it was unnecessary to have given retrospective effect for Clause.1(c) of the Amendment Act because of the operation of the Ordinance. Therefore, he contended that validity of retrospectivity of the s