TWIN CITY JEWELLERS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a well settled principle of law that statutes should be interpreted as far as practicable so as to respect the legislative intent. The validity of the statute is normally presumed and unless invalidity is writ large the question of declaring the same to be invalid would not arise. Similar is the situation as regards the retrospective element in the statute. Normally, retrospectivity is an artificial element and cannot be termed to be a proper legislative exercise unless, however, the Legislature deems it expendient clearly and explicitly to have the operation retrospectively since the true principle is the lex prospicit non respicit (law looks forward and not back). Hence, retrospectivity being artificial and artificiality are generally repugnant to law, it therefore follows that the Courts apply the general presumption that an enactment is not intended to have retrospective effect. The power, however, of the Legislature to produce such an effect where it so desires is nevertheless undoubted and the general presumption therefore applies only unless the contrary intention appears. In 'Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes' it is stated :

(2.) It is a general principle of legal policy that no one should suffer detriment by the application of a doubtful law. The general presumption against retrospectivity means that where one of the opposing constructions of an enactment would, without clear words justifying it, impose an ex post facto law, that construction is necessarily doubtful. As a matter of fact, a retrospective enactment to some extent inflicts a detriment, as has been stated by Lord Brightman in Yew Bon Tew vs. Kenderaan Bas Maria.

(3.) Having dealt with the law on the subject, let us now, at this juncture, advert to the contextual facts. The principal grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is in regard to the rate of tax for sale of articles of jewellery made of bullion or specie or both, including precious stones. The contextual facts depict that by a Government Order being G.O. Ms. No. 252, Revenue, dated 19-5-1995, the tax leviable on the sale of jewellery manufactured out of such tax paid gold, and sold in the State shall be 2 per cent, including those set with precious stones, as also in respect of precious stones loose, other than pearls at the rate of 2 per cent. Be it noted here that there was neither any confusion nor irregularity observed as regards payment of tax. Subsequently, however, on 15-4-1997 in another Government Order being G.O. Ms. No. 303 there was some modification so far as the earlier Government order being G.O.Ms. No. 252 is concerned. As a matter of fact, Clause (b) of G.O. Ms. No. 252, Revenue, dated 19-5-1995 stood rescinded and Clause (c) was also amended to read : "at the reduced rate of 3 per cent". Clause (b) and (c) of G.O. Ms. No. 252, Revenue, dated 19-5-1995, are however, set-out hereunder for proper appreciation of the submissions advanced in the matter :