KELAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(KER)-1963-11-20
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on November 04,1963

KELAPPAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)IN both these writ petitions, the common question that arises for decision is as to whether the amounts of tax, assessed as against these two petitioners, on the basis of the Madras Tobacco (Taxation of Sales and Registration) Act, 1953 (Act IV of 1953), can, after the repeal of that statute, be recovered in the manner provided under S. 6 of the said Act.
(2.)IT will be seen that orders of assessment, making the petitioners liable for tax for the years beginning from 1955-56 and ending with 1957-58, were passed under the Madras Act IV of 1953 referred to above. There is no controversy that under S. 6 of the Madras Act, it is provided that all taxes, fines and other sums payable to the State Government under any of the provisions of the Act, may by recovered as if they were arrears of land revenue. The said Madras Act IV of 1953 was repealed by S. 27 (2) of the General sales Tax Act, 1125. S. 27 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, deals with repeal. S. 27 (2), in particular, repeals the Madras Act IV of 1953, "as in force in the Malabar District referred to in sub-section (2) of S. 5 of the states Reorganisation Act, 1956. " There is only a simple provision made under sub-section (2) of S. 27 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, to the effect that the particular enactment, namely the Madras Tobacco (Taxation of Sales and registration) Act, 1953 (Act IV of 1953), along with the other enactments mentioned therein, "are hereby repealed". No doubt, there is a proviso to sub-section (2) of S. 27 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 which is not material for the present purpose.
After the repeal of the Madras Act IV of 1953, in the manner referred to above, proceedings were taken to recover amounts, assessed as against the petitioners, under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The question is whether the authorities are entitled to collect the amounts under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.

According to Mr. V. Sivaraman Nair learned counsel for the petitioner there has been an absolute repeal of the Madras Act in question under S. 27 (2) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, without any reservation or saving, and therefore it follows that the manner of recovery provided under S. 6 of the repealed Act is no longer available to the State for recovery of any amounts, by resort to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. On the other hand, according to the learned Government Pleader, the provisions of clause (c)or clause (e) of S. 4 of the Travancore-Cochin Interpretation and General clauses Act, 1125 (Act VII of 1125) apply in full force to this matter. If that is so, according to the learned Government Pleader, the right to recover the amounts assessed under the Madras Act has been preserved in favour of the State under clause (c )of S. 4 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act. That right, according to the learned Government Pleader, will include the right of the State Government to recover amounts in the manner provided under the Madras act, which has no doubt been repealed. The learned Government Pleader also urged that in any event, clause (e) of the Interpretation and General Clauses act preserves the right of the State Government to adopt the remedy in respect of the right that had been given to it under the repealed Act. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, inasmuch as the right to recover the amounts is preserved under clause (c) of S. 4 of the Interpretation and General clauses Act, the remedy available to the State for enforcing that right, provided under S. 6 of the repealed Madras Act, is also available on the basis of clause (e) of S. 4 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act.

(3.)ACCORDING to Mr. Sivaraman Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner, it cannot certainly be stated in this case that any right has been specially conferred on the State Government to recover the tax by virtue of the Madras Act in question under the Revenue Recovery Act Because, according to the learned counsel, the collection of the tax and the manner of the collection enure to the Government by virtue of its being a paramount power, and it is only in cases where particular rights have been conferred by particular statutes that the provisions of the Interpretation and General clauses Act, relied upon by the learned Government Pleader, will apply.
In my view, the decision on this question really depends upon the construction to be placed on the expression 'right' occurring in clause (c) of S. 4, and the expression "remedy in respect of such right" occurring in clause (e) of S. 4 of the Interpretation and General clauses Act. It is clear that the provisions of the Interpretation Act regarding the effect of a repeal as mentioned in S. 4 of the Act, will really come into play unless a different ntention appears from the statute. So far as i could see, Mr. Sivaraman Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not been able to point out that any different intention in respect of the manner of the recovery of the amounts under the Madras Act, has been indicated under the act, which repealed it, namely, the General Sales Tax, 1125. If that is so, the state Government is certainly entitled to fall back upon the provisions of S. 4 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, for the purpose of finding power in it to recover the amounts due under the Madras Act that had fallen due under the Madras Act on the basis of the remedy provided in that statute itself. It is not really necessary for this Court to consider as to whether without any specific provision like that contained in S. 6 of Madras Act IV of 1953 it would have been open to the State Government as a paramount power to collect the taxes and other sums as if they were arrears of land revenue. But in this case it is to be seen that S. 6 of the Madras Act IV of 1953 specifically provided for the taxes and other sums referred to therein being recovered as if they were arrears of land revenue There can be no controversy that such amounts can be recovered under the provisions of the concerned Revenue Recovery Act. If that is so, by virtue of S. 6 of the Madras Act IV of 1953, it also follows that the manner of recovery of the taxes and other amounts referred to therein is by resort to the provisions of the concerned Revenue Recovery Act.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.