The judgment of the Court was delivered by

OAK, C.J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of recovery proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act and the U.P. Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Central Act and the U.P. Act respectively. M/s. Beni Ram Mool Chand are the petitioners.

This is a firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling scents. The petitioner became liable to pay sales tax under the two statutes. The tax remained unpaid for a considerable time. The authorities, therefore, initiated proceedings for recovery of arrears of tax. The Collector of Farrukhabad issued on 28th March, 1967, a sale proclamation with respect to certain property belonging to the petitioner. According to the sale proclamation, the arrears outstanding against the petitioner amounted to Rs. 73,000 and odd. According to the petitioner, the claim of the respondents is highly exaggerated. The petitioner has, therefore, flied this petition for having the sale proclamation quashed. Annexure F to the petition is a copy of the sale proclamation.

According to the respondents, the petitioner became liable to pay interest on arrears under sub-section (1-A) of section 8 of the U.P. Act. The main contention of Mr. Brij Lal Gupta appearing for the petitioner is that sub-section (1-A) of section 8 of the U.P. Act is invalid. Sub-section (1-A) of section 8 of the U.P. Act states :-

"If the tax payable under sub-section (1) remains unpaid for six months after the expiry of the time specified in the notice of assessment and demand, or the commencement of the Utter Pradesh Bikri- Kar (Dwitiya Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1963, whichever is later, then without prejudice to any other liability or penalty which the defaulter may in consequence of such non-payment, incur under this Act, simple interest at the rate of eighteen per cent per annum shall run on the amount then remaining due from the date of expiry of the time specified in the said notice, or from the commencement of the said Adhiniyam, as the case may be, and shall be added to the amount of tax and be deemed for all purposes to be part of the tax ........."

Mr. Brij Lal Gupta urged that the U.P. Legislature has no power to levy interest on arrears of sales tax. Entry No. 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India confers on State Legislatures power to impose tax on the sale or purchase of goods. It is true that there is no reference to interest in entry No. 54. But it seems to us that power to charge interest on arrears of sales tax is a power incidental to the power to impose sales tax.

It was next urged for the petitioner that sub-section (1-A) of section 8 conflicts with section 3-A of the U.P. Act. Sub-section (2) of section 3-A of the U.P. Act lays down that single point taxation cannot exceed the rate of ten paise per rupee. Mr. Brij Lal Gupta pointed out that if interest is added to the original tax, the total tax may exceed the rate of ten paise per rupee, as laid down in sub-section (2) of section 3-A of the U.P. Act. There is apparently a conflict between pub-section (2) of section S-A and sub-section (1-A) of section 8 of the U.P. Act. But we must bear in mind that both these provisions form parts of the same statute. Courts must make reasonable endeavour to reconcile the two

provisions of the statute. To that extent, the provision of sub- section(2) of section 3-A must be understood as subject to the special provision of sub-section (1-A) of section 8 of the U.P. Act. The apparent conflict in the two provisions is not sufficient for striking down the provision of subsection (1-A) of section 8 of the U.P. Act.

The validity of sub-section (1-A) of section 8 of the U.P. Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in P. C. Bhandari and Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P, nd Others (Writ Petition No. 2044 of 1967, decided on 11th July, 1967) [Since reported at page 324 supra.] It was held b