An explanation added to a statutory provision is not a substantive provision but is meant to explain or clarify certain ambiguities in the statutory provision.

JUDGMENT

D. P. MOHAPATRA, J. - The petitioners have filed this application under article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1979 (Orissa Act 24 of 1979) (hereinafter referred to as the "amending Act") ultra vires the Constitution; to direct by a writ of mandamus the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa and his subordinates not to enforce, execute and administer the provisions of the said Act in respect of the petitioners and for other consequential reliefs.

The petitioner No. 1 is the Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited, an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, and petitioner No. 2 is one Paresh Chandra Dash, Manager of the Mill No. 3 at Choudwar and the Principal officer of petitioner No. 1. Of the eighteen opposite parties, the State of Orissa represented by the Secretary in the Finance Department, Secretary to the State Government in the Law Department and the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa are opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 respectively. Opposite parties Nos. 4 to 8 are Sales Tax Officers of different circles in the districts of Dhenkanal, Cuttack, Puri, Phulbani and Sambalpur. The Orissa Sales Tax Act which has been amended by the impugned statute shall, for convenience, be referred to as "the principal Act" hereafter.

2. The petitioners challenge the vires of the amending Act on various grounds, such as want of legislative competence, being violative of articles 13(2), 14, 19(1)(g), 265, 300, 300-A read with article 304(b) of the Constitution. It is their case that the decisions of this Court in a series of cases, for example in the cases of Ramakrishna Deo v. Collector of Sales Tax, Orissa [1955] 6 STC 674, State of Orissa v. Divisional Forest Officer [1973] 32 STC 487 and Straw Products Limited v. State of Orissa [1978] 42 STC 302, went against opposite party No. 1. The said opposite party No. 1 applied under article 136(1) of the Constitution for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment passed by this Court and leave was granted by the court. The appeal was pending on the relevant date, i.e., 19th of July, 1979, when the impugned amending Act was enforced. It is the contention of the petitioners that by filing the case in the Supreme Court, opposite party No. 1 held out the representation to petitioner No. 1 that it has chosen to avail of the constitutional right of appeal and to abide by the final judgment of the Supreme Court. Acting on the representation, the petitioners were getting ready to contest the case. But the said opposite party No. 1 went back upon its representation and enacted the impugned amending Act and, therefore, its action is hit by the principles of equitable and promissory estoppel which bind the State in its various departments and activities. It is the further case of the petitioners that such action of opposite parties, particularly opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, invades the sanctity of the constitutional status, dignity, prestige and the rights and power of the Supreme Court of India enshrined in articles 355(1) and 346(3) (sic) of the Constitution of India. It is also the case of the petitioners that the amending Act creates a situation where a person is subjected to two laws, one the principal Act and the other the amending Act and that the latter is more rigorous and burdensome and less advantageous than the other. Therefore, the latter is liable to be struck down. Referring to the concept of "dealer" under the principal Act which postulates the carrying on of the activities in the nature of business for a given period of time in order to be a "dealer", the petitioners contend that explanation II in the amending Act takes away that effect. Therefore, there is clear discrimination in the provisions of the amending Act which offends article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners submit that the power to legislate in accordance with entry 54 of List II o