SUN PAPER MILLS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals are directed against the orders of the learned single Judge in a batch of writ petitions, where the appellant herein, who was the petitioner in the writ petitions, questioned the notices issued by the third respondent for revision of the assessments for the years 1975-76 to 1981-82. The respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petitions. It is better, we refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petitions. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on business of manufacture and sale of newsprint paper to various newspaper concerns throughout India for the past about three decades. Suffice it to state at this juncture that the petitioner for all these assessment years was assessed to sales tax in respect of sales of white printing paper to the newspaper concerns on the basis that the concession notification dated 12th November, 1965, published in the Fort St. George gazette dated 24th November, 1965, hereinafter referred to as "the concession notification" (the details of which we will have occasion to refer to later because there is a controversy built over the said details)applied. By the notices, impugned in the writ petitions, there is a move to reopen the assessments on the ground that the concession notification had been withdrawn by the withdrawal notification dated 20th March, 1967, published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 22nd March, 1967. The said notification hereinafter referred to as "the withdrawal notification". The learned single judge, who dealt with the writ petitions, dismissed them, opining that the petitioner can take objections by filing comprehensive replies to the impugned notices and even otherwise on examining the materials on record there is no infirmity in the impugned notices. The learned single Judge dealt with the matter very briefly in the following manner : "the point that arises for determination in these petitions is whether the relief prayed for in these writ petitions can be granted. Even at the outset, it has to be stated that when there is proper remedy available for the petitioner to put forth its objections by way of reply to the notices of revisions issued by the third respondent, the petitioner has come forward with these writ petitions. Whatever it wants to say by way of objections, it can be done by filing comprehensive replies to the notices. On the other hand, and far from doing so, to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution, is not called for. Anyhow, these petitions have been admitted. And this Court, at this stage, on examining the material on record, does not find any infirmity in the notices issued by the third respondent, since they have been issued only under the relevant provisions of the Act. For this reason, all these writ petitions are dismissed. " * As noted earlier, these writ appeals are directed against the orders of the learned single Judge. Dr. D. Pal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, canvassed before us two points, coveting interference in appeals at our hands. It must be stated that the second of the points was not taken in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions and the same has been taken only before us in these writ appeals by taking out the appropriate applications for permission to raise additional grounds.

(2.) THE first point gets projected as follows in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions : THE exercise of delegated legislation is conditional upon the publication thereof. THEre must be due publication of the withdrawal notification in exercise of the delegated legislative power, which alone will be in the letter and spirit of the statutory provision enabling the exercise of such power. Neither the public, nor even the authorities were aware of the issuance of the withdrawal notification in the year 1967, whereby the concession notification of the year 1965 was withdrawn. It must be stated that the power of delegated legislation has not been properly exercised and cannot be given effect to. THEre was no publication of the withdrawal notification to the best of the information received by the petitioner. THE withdrawal notification merely sets out the number, the page. Part and Section of the Fort St. George Gazette in which the concession notification was published. THE withdrawal notification did not set out the commodity or goods with respect to which the concession notification was issued and the withdrawal notification does not set out any further particulars. Without such particulars, it would be impossible for anyone to know as to what the scope and content of the withdrawal notification are. This is made clear from the very fact that the authorities themselves did not know about the withdrawal notification. THE respondents in their counter-affidavit, with regard to this grievance of the petitioner, would only say that no more particulars need be published, as contended by the petitioner.

(3.) IT is true there is a communication relating to the withdrawal notification by the Board on 31st March, 1967, to the Deputy commissioners. But, this inter-communication would not suffice the concept of due notification. A similar contention was repelled by the Supreme Court in state of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Ragubir Prasad 1979 AIR (SC) 888, 1979 (4) SCC 686 by pointing out "contextually speaking, we are satisfied that publication means more than mere communication to concerned officials or departments" * . But, in the instant case, even the departmental officials could not and did not comprehend that an event like the withdrawal notification did happen. They were oblivious to the withdrawal notification and year after yearassessment of the petitioner was made on the basis that the concession notification applied to it. There is no dispute over the same. Dr. D. Pal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, also places before us authors and publishers of repute of books on sales tax law, Central and State, to show that they also made known to the public that the concession notification alone governed and there was no withdrawal of it. This endeavour was only to impress upon us that nobody was made wiser of the withdrawal notification and every one proceeded on the ground that the concession notification governed.