An order, although void in law, remains effective and operative until its invalidity is declared by a competent body or court.

1. The petitioner-Company was assessed to sales-tax under S.35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the year 1972-73 by Ext. P4 dated 13-3-1975. A penalty was imposed upon it under Ext. P5 dated 13 81975. A notice of demand was served on it by the 3rd respondent, Deputy Tahsildar, Mattancherry, Cochin, under S.7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. These orders are challenged by the petitioner.

2. Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Chakkappan Kalliath, submits that Ext. P4 levying sales-tax in respect of the sales in question is null and void as such levy is barred under Art.286 of the Constitution. Consequently Ext. P5 imposing penalty upon the petitioner is also null and void. Counsel further submits that the notice issued under S.7 by the 3rd respondent Deputy Tahsildar is invalid as he is not a competent officer to initiate proceedings for collection of revenue due and payable to the Collector of Bombay. Counsel also submits that the provisions of either the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, or the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, do not authorise collection of revenue in one State on behalf of the authorities of another State.

3. The contention that Exts P4 and P5 are null and void for the reason that the imposition of tax is barred under Art.286 of the Constitution is based on the assumption that the sales in question took place in the course of import. No such contention is stated by the petitioner to have been urged before the authorities in Bombay. Whether or not the sales were effected in the course of import is essentially a question of fact which has to be determined by the competent authorities. Even assuming that this question had been urged by the petitioner and wrongly determined by the Sales-tax Officer in Bombay, Ext. P4 assessment was not challenged before the statutory authorities in Bombay. In the circumstances the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that Ext. P4 is a void order and therefore it is open to it to resist recovery on the strength of such order. Assuming that Ext. P4 is void, the petitioner ought to have promptly approached the competent court and had that order declared void by due process of law.

4. An order, although void in law, remains for many purposes effective and operative until it is challenged and its invalidity is declared by a competent body or court. It is not open to a person to ignore an order made against him by a competent authority in the purported exercise of its statutory power solely on the ground that the order is null and void and resist all consequences flowing from it. It is not correct to say that an order which is void, is void in the sense that it has no effect at all. An order may be void ab initio, but it remains in effect and continues to operate until its invalidity is declared by the Court. Upon such declaration, the order goes out of existence as from the date on which it was made. But until then a void order is only voidable and it continues to operate against the person against whom it was made, and he is bound by the consequences flowing from the order. (See the principles stated by Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest in Ridge v. Baldwin (1963) 2 WLR. 935 at 992-993; Lord Wilberforce in Calvin v Carr 1979 (2) All. E. R.440 at 445.) An order which is ultra vires, i.e., an order which is unauthorised by law and therefore outside jurisdiction, is null and void; whereas an order which is intra vires, i e., within jurisdiction, but vitiated by an error on the face of the record, is only voidable. [Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) 2 A. C. 147]. A void order, when quashed, is deprived of all legal effect right from its inception, whereas a voidable order remains valid even when it is quashed for the period of its operation. [See H.W R. Wade, Administrative Law, 4th Ed. P. 297]. But the distinction between 'jurisdictional errors' (using that expression in the sense in which it was understood by the House of Lords in Anisminic) and errors with