titions Nos 110 to 115 of 1960
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights A V Viswanatha Sastri R K Garg D P Singh section C Aggarwal and M K Ramamurthi for the Petitioner
B Sen B K B Naidu and I N Shroff for the Respondents
December 21
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH J
These six petitions under article 32 of the Constitution have been filed by one Bhaiyalal Shukla who was doing business of construction of buildings roads bridges etc
as contractor for the Public Works Department in Rewa Circle of the former Vindhya Pradesh State now a part of the State of Madhya Pradesh
By these petitions he challenges the levy of sales tax on building materials supplied by him in the construction of buildings roads and bridges for the years 1953 54 to 1958 59
For the first year in question sales tax amounting to Rs 1840 5 0 has 260 already been charged and paid
He seeks refund of this amount
For the remaining years except the last two proceedings for assessment have been completed but the amounts have not been paid
For the remaining two years proceedings are pending for assessment of the tax
The respondents in the case are the State of Madhya Pradesh which stands substituted for the State of Vindhya Pradesh and diverse officers connected with the assessment and levy of the tax
The contention of the petitioner is that the tax is not leviable in view of the decisions of this Court in two cases reported in The State of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley and Co Madras Ltd1 and Pandit Banarsidas vs The State of Madhya Pradesh 2
The respondents however claim that the tax is leviable because the case falls within the decision of this Court reported in Mithan Lal vs The State of Delhi 3
The United State of Vindhya Pradesh was formed by the Rulers of the States in Baghelkhand and Bundhelkhand who agreed to unite into a common State with the Maharaja of Rewa as the Rajpramukh
By the Covenant which was entered into by them at that time it was provided that until a Constitution for the United State would vest in the Rajpramukh and he was authorised to make and promulgate Ordinances for the peace and good government of the United State of any part thereof and any Ordinance made by him had the force of an Act passed by the legislature of the United State
The Rajpramukh in exercise of his powers drawn from the Covenant promulgated the Vindhya Pradesh Sales Tax Ordinance 2 of 1949 for the levy of a tax on the sale of goods in Vindhya Pradesh
On the inauguration of the present Constitution of 261 India Vindhya Pradesh became at first a part B State but later by the Constitution Amendment of the First and Fourth Schedules Order 1950 it was transferred from Part B to Part C of the Constitution
The ordinance of the Rajpramukh was applied to the whole of Vindhya Pradesh with effect from April 1 1950 by Notification No 7 of March 28 1950 by the Chief Commissioner Vindhya Pradesh acting under section 12 of the ordinance
Parliament then passed the Part C States Laws Act 1950
Section 2 of that Act provided Power to extend enactments to certain Part C States The Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette extend to any Part C State or to any part of such State with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit any enactment which is in force in a Part A State at the date of the notification and provision may be made in any enactment so extended for the repeal or amendment of any corresponding lawother than a Central Act which is for the time being applicable to that Part C State In exercise of the power conferred by the above section the Central Government by Notification No SRO 6 dated December 29 1950 extended to the State of Vindhya Pradesh the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act 1947 21 of 1947 as in force for the time being in the State of Madhya Pradesh subject to certain modifications necessitated by the application of the Act to this new area
By the same Notification a new section was added to the Madhya Pradesh Act which read as follows 29
Repeal and Saving The Vindhya Pradesh Sales Tax Ordinance 2 of 1949 is here by repealed provided that   and here follow certain provisions saving the previous operation of the Ordinance
262 On March 20 1951 the Central Government issued Notification No 52ECON
in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section
3 of section 1 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act 1947 as extended to the State of Vindhya Pradesh by Notification No SRO 6 ordering that from April 1 1951 the extended Act would come into force in the State of Vindhya Pradesh
On May 23 1951 this Court rendered its judgment in In re the Delhi Laws Act 19121
It was held by majority by this Court that section 2 of the Part C States Laws Act 1950 was intra vires except for the concluding sentence provision may be made in any enactment so extended for the repeal or amendment of any corresponding law other than a Central Act which is for the time being applicable to that Part C State inasmuch as it was ultra vires the Indian Parliament
Parliament then passed the 49 of 1951 on September 6 1951
Under that Act Legislative Assemblies were set up and under section 21 they were invested subject to certain limitations with Powers of legislation with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or in the Concurrent List
Section 22 of that Act provided If any provision of a law made by the Legislative Assembly of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament then the law made by Parliament whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislative Assembly of the State shall prevail and the law made by the Legislative Assembly of the State shall to the extent of the repugnancy be void
Explanation For the purposes of this section the expression law made by Parliament  shall not include any law which provides 263 for the extension to the State of any law in force in any other part of the territory of India
 In view of the decision of this Court in the case1 the States Miscellaneous Law Repealing Act 1951 66 of 1951 was enacted by Parliament on October 31 1951
By section 2 of that Act laws described in Column 2 of its Schedule were repealed or were deemed to have been repealed with effect from the dates specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 of that Schedule
In the Schedule the Vindhya Pradesh Sales Tax Ordinance 1949 2 of 1949 was repealed from December 29 1950
The Vindhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly which was set up then passed the Vindhya Pradesh Laws Validating Act 1952 6 of 1952
By that Act which was to extend to the whole of Vindhya Pradesh and to come into force on January 81953 it was provided as follows 2
For the removal of all doubts it is hereby declared that 
Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act 1947 as extended to Vindhya Pradesh under section 2 of the Part C States Laws Act 1950 has been and shall be deemed to be in force in Vindhya Pradesh from April 1 1951
Repeal and savings As from the dates of the actual enforcement of the Acts specified in section 2 of this Act the corresponding laws in force in Vindhya Pradesh immediately before the said dates shall be deemed to have been repealed without prejudice to anything done or suffered thereunder or any right privilege obligation or liability acquired accrued or incurred thereunder before the aforesaid dates
 Section 2 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act 1947 which was extended to 264 Vindhya Pradesh defined contract to mean any agreement for the carrying out for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration the construction fitting out improvement or repair of any building road bridge or other immovable property and further defined goods to mean all kinds of property including all materials articles and commodities whether or not to be used in the construction fitting out improvement or repair of immovable property and finally defined sale as including transfer of property in goods made in the course of the execution of a contract
By these definitions the materials used or supplied by a building contractor in the construction of buildings roads bridges etc were made liable to sales tax in accordance with a schedule of rates to which reference seems unnecessary
The legality of these and similar provisions of law purporting to impose sales tax on building materials in State Acts came up for consideration before High Courts in India and two well defined views were expressed one holding that the power to disentangle in a building contract the sale of materials from the execution of works with a view to taxing such a sale was not beyond the legislative power of the States acting under Entry 48 List II Seventh Schedule of the Government of India Act 1935 corresponding to Entry 54 of the like List in the Constitution
It was held in those cases that a building contract though entire involved labour plus materials and in respect of the materials there was a sale involving transfer of property for consideration and that the legislature had the power to frame a definition of sale to separate the two
The other view was that building contracts were entire and that there was no sale of goods as contemplated by the Indian Sale of Goods Act which was the sense in which the Entry was framed a sense which had a well recognised legal import
265 This Court in Gannon Dunkerley s case 1 approved the latter view which is found in the decision of the Madras High Court in sub nom Gannon Dunkerley vs State of Madras2 and disapproved the contrary view
It was pointed out that though in a popular sense there was a sale of the materials there was none in the sense in which the expression sale of goods is used in the Indian Sale of Goods Act since there was no agreement to sell or sale of materials as such nor did the property pass therein as movables
In Pandit Banarsi Das s case 3 which was a case from the State of Madhya Pradesh and which was heard simultaneously it was held that if the parties entered into distinct and separate contracts one for transfer of materials for money consideration and the other for payment of remuneration for services or works done then there was a sale within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act and the levy of tax was valid but that if the contract was an entire one the levy was without competence
The sections of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act making such a division and taxing the so called sales of materials were declared to be beyond the powers of the State Legislature
The petitioner contends that the impugned sections of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act as applied to Vindhya Pradesh fell within these two rulings and must also be declared ultra vires the Vindhya Pradesh State Legislature when the latter enacted the Vindhya Pradesh Laws Validating Act 1952
As against this the respondents contend that the Notification SRO No 6 which added section 29 repealing the Vindhya Pradesh Sales Tax Ordinance 2 of 1949 the Part C States Miscellaneous Laws Repealing Act 1951 and the Vindhya Pradesh Laws Validating Act 1952 all concurred in repealing 266 Ordinance 2 of 1949 from December 29 1950 but left intact the operation of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act as extended to Vindhya Pradesh by section R O No 6 of 1950
The Vindhya Pradesh Laws Validating Act 1952 merely removed the doubts by stating again that the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act had been and shall be deemed to be in force in Vindhya Pradesh from April 1 1951 but did not re enact that Act
According to the respondents the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act was in force in Vindhya Pradesh as a result of its extension by Notification section R O 6 and Notification No 52 Econ the repeal of Ordinance 2 of 1949 being achieved by the Part C States Miscellaneous Laws Repealing Act 1951 from December 29 1950
The respondents therefore seek to uphold the impugned provisions on the basis of the ruling of this Court in Mithan Lal s case1 where it was pointed out that whatever might be said of the State Legislatures operating under List II did not hold good in the case of Parliament which derived its powers in relation to legislation in Part C States not only from all the Lists but also from the residuary powers of taxation mentioned in article 2482
It was also held that section 2 of the Part C States Laws Act 1950 was not repugnant to article 2482 that the extended law became incorporated by reference in the Part C States Laws Act and that the tax was thus one imposed by Parliament itself
The respondents therefore contend that as held in Mithan Lal s case1 when parliament enacted the Part C States Laws Act 1950 and conferred power on the Central Government to extend any Act of a Part A State to any Part C State that power of extension carried with it the plenary powers of Parliament and even though the law so extended might have been outside the competence of the State Legislature which enacted it when extended under the 267 authority of Parliament was a valid piece of law in Part C State
The rival contentions may be reduced to the proposition that if the State Legislature of Vindhya Pradesh extended the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act then the extended Act would suffer from the disability pointed out in Gannon Dunkerley s case 1 but if the Central Provinces and Berar Act was extended by the Notification under the Part States Laws Act 1950 then it must be treated as incorporated in that Act and to have the authority of Parliament which in relation to Part C States had no limitations whatever
We have therefore to see whether the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act 1947 can be said to have been extended for the first time by the Vindhya Pradesh Legislature in 1952 when it passed the Vindhya Pradesh Laws Validating Act 1952 to the exclusion of the order contained in the Notification No section R O 6 or whether the Act continued to be in force in Vindhya Pradesh even before and all that the Vindhya Pradesh Act did was to remove any doubts about its validity
The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the Notification dated December 29 1950 was invalid in its latter part as decided by this Court in the case 2
That portion dealt with the repeal of Ordinance 2 of 1949 and if the Notification was invalid in that part then the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act which was extended by the opening part never came into force
Mr Viswanatha Sastri contended that the notification must be looked at compendiously and that it was impossible to think that the Central Government would have extended the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act if the earlier Ordinance still continued to operate
He relied in this connection upon the observations of this Court in Pesikaka s case 3 to urge that the 268 Notification which was beyond the powers of the Central Government in its latter part must be regarded as a nullity and contended that if the invalid portion of the Notification was fundamental to the operation of the valid then the valid portion also must equally fail because it could not have been intended that two laws on the same topic were to operate simultaneously in Vindhya Pradesh
According to him the extension of the Central Provinces and Berar Act could not and would not have been made if the Ordinance had not been first repealed
Section 29 which was added though composed of two parts was according to him really a part of a single scheme and the repeal of the Ordinance and the extension of the Central Provinces and Berar Act could stand or fall together and since the Ordinance was never validly repealed it continued to operate in Vindhya Pradesh till its repeal on October 31 1951 by the Part C States Miscellaneous Laws Repealing Act 1951 and when the Act repealed it from December 29 1950 the effect was that there was no sales tax law in operation in Vindhya Pradesh because the Part C States Miscellaneous Laws Repealing Act 1951 did not enact or extend any law on the subject of sales tax in or to Vindhya Pradesh
According to him till the enactment of the Vindhya Pradesh Laws Validating Act 6 of 1952 on January 8 1953 there was no law imposing sales tax in Vindhya Pradesh and the law was then made by the Legislature of Vindhya Pradesh by extending the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act from April 1 1951
He therefore contended that since the powers of the Vindhya Pradesh Legislature did not include the power of imposing sales tax on building materials this Act of the Vindhya Pradesh Legislature if it sought to impose sales tax on building materials fell within the ruling in Gannon Dunkerley s case 1 and must be declared as of no effect
He also referred to Act 9 of 1953 269 passed by the Vindhya Pradesh State Legislature by which the Act was further amended and stated that the extended Act as amended owed its existence neither to Parliament nor to the Central Government acting under the Part C States Laws Act but to the Vindhya Pradesh Laws Validating Act 1952 6 to 1952 and the Vindhya Pradesh Amendment Act 1953 9 of 1953
There is a fundamental fallacy involved in this reasoning
We are considering the applicability of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act as extended to Vindhya Pradesh
The Vindhya Pradesh Amending Act made only verbal changes but did not alter the structure of the tax
No doubt that Act contained certain provisions under which sales of building materials are taxable and if the authority to tax the so called sales emanated from a State Legislature then the law would fail
But we have to remember in this connection that the law was first extended to Vindhya Pradesh by the Central Government acting under the authority of Parliament legislating for a Part C State
Parliament and the Central Government were not subject to the disabilities pointed out in Gannon Dunkerley s case 1 and the matter was covered by the decision of this Court in Mithan Lal s case 2
Even if the Notification section R O No 6 failed to repeal ordinance 2 of 1949 Parliament by its own law effaced that Ordinance in Vindhya Pradesh from December 29 1950 and enacted that the Ordinance shall be deemed to be repealed from that day
After the passing of the Repealing Act by parliament it is impossible to argue that Ordinance 2 of 1949 continued in Vindhya Pradesh down to January 8 1953 because by fiction the Ordinance was repealed from December 29 1950
Parliamentary legislation therefore came to the rescue so to speak of the Notification by making room for the extension of the Central Provinces and 270 Berar Act by repealing Ordinance 2 of 1949 which the Notification proprio vigore was unable to achieve as laid down in the case1
The Notification of the Central Government section R O No 6 and Act 66 of 1951 therefore concurred in removing the Ordinance on December 29 1950 and in extending the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act in its place on the same date
Mr Viswanatha Sastri argued on the strength of ruling of this Court in Deepchand vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2 that the validity of a law must be judged as on the date on which it was passed and if the law was invalid on that date then the law must be deemed not to have existed at all unless it was later re enacted
The passage relied upon is as follows The validity of a statute is to be tested by the constitutional power of a legislature at the time of its enactment by that legislature and if thus tested it is beyond the legislative power it is not rendered valid without re enactment if later by constitutional amendment the necessary legislative power is granted
An after acquired power cannot ex proprio vigore validate a statute void when enacted p 24
This argument would be applicable if we were to consider that Notification No section R O 6 in isolation and the question was one of validation of that Notification
The Notification is being questioned because it sought to repeal Ordinance 2 of 1949 which it could not do
But today we are not in a position to say that Ordinance 2 of 1949 continued in Vindhya Pradesh because Parliament by the Part C States Miscellaneous Laws Repealing Act 1951 has enacted that the said ordinance must be deemed to have been repealed from December 29 1950
Indeed in the ruling 271 of this Court at the same page are cited passages from Willoughby on Constitution of the United States 2nd Edn Vol 1 p 10 based on the decision in John M Wilkerson vs Charles A Rahrer 1 to the effect that if the cause of the unconstitutionality is removed then the law does not need to be re enacted
The facts of this case are entirely different from those in Deepchand s case 2
The extended law did not depend on the repeal of the earlier law for its validity
It would have been operative even if the earlier law was not repealed but the earlier law was in fact repealed from December 291950 and no question of conflict between the new and the old law ever arose
Parliament by repealing the ordinance rendered the ineffective portion of the Notification a mere surplusage
The necessary result thus was that its operative part survived and the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act 1947 was validly extended to Vindhya Pradesh and was valid law as laid down in Mithanlal s case 3
It did not suffer from the defects pointed out by the this Court in Gannon Dunkerley s case 4 as it was not enacted or extended by the State Legislature
It remains to consider the last argument on this point and it is that the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act was re extended to Vindhya Pradesh by Act 6 of 1952 and thus owed its existence to a law made by a State Legislature which was incompetent to enact a law that building materials in a works contract which was entire were liable to sales tax
The preamble of the Act shows that it was enacted to remove certain doubts which were entertained as to whether the extended Sales Tax Act became operative only from October 31 1951 when Act 66 of 1951 was passed or from an earlier date viz April 1 1951 from which date it was brought into force in 272 Vindhya Pradesh by Notification No 52 Econ dated March 20 1951
To remove these doubts the Vindhya Pradesh Laws Validating Act 1952 enacted with the assent of the President declared by section 2 already quoted that the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act had been and shall be deemed to be in force in Vindhya Pradesh from April 1 1951
 This declaration did not extend prorio vigore the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act but only declared that it must be deemed to be validly in force from April 1 1951
Section 7 on which much reliance has been placed may be quoted again Repeal and savings As from the dates of the actual enforcement of the Acts specified in Section 2 of this Act the corresponding laws in force in Vindhya Pradesh immediately before the said dates shall be deemed to have been repealed without prejudice to anything done or suffered thereunder or any right privilege obligation or liability acquired accrued or incurred thereunder before the aforesaid dates It is said that if the two sections are read together they mean that the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act was freshly extended from April 1 1951 by the Vindhya Pradesh Act and any law made by any authority earlier was freshly repealed to make room for the extension
This argument in our opinion is erroneous
To begin with the powers of the Vindhya Pradesh Legislature were circumscribed by section 22 of the Government of part C States Act 1951 quoted earlier
Under that section the powers of the State Legislatures did not extend to making laws repugnant to any law made by Parliament
The Explanation defines the expression law made by Parliament and excludes a law which provides for the extension to the State of any law in force 273 in any other part of the territory of India
The Vindhya Pradesh Legislature however did not repeal either section 2 of the Part C States Laws Act or the Notification and all that the Legislature did was to add its own authority by a declaration to the laws earlier extended
The law was extended first by Notification SRO No 6 on December 29 1950 but it was brought into force only by Notification No 52 Econ dated March 20 1950 from April 1 1951
The Notification section R O No 6 had substituted for sub s3 of section 1 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act the following 3 It shall come into force on such date as may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette
 Till the Notification No 52 Econ was made the Act was extended but was not in force in Vindhya Pradesh
There is a difference between the extension of a law subject to its being brought into force latter and its coming into force on a later date
Section 7 of Act 6 of 1952 repealed only the laws in force prior to the date on which the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act was brought into force
It speaks of laws in force in Vindhya Pradesh immediately before April 1 1951 and the law which was in force immediately before that date was not the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act which had not been brought into force but might be Ordinance 2 of 1949 if it had not been successfully repealed earlier
The former Act was extended on December 29 1950 but was not brought into force till April 1 1951 and the section speaks of laws in force
The section therefore refers to Ordinance 2 of 1949 which would be in force immediately before April 1 1951 if not successfully repealed but not to the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act which was only extended before that date but had not been brought into force
In other words section 7 of the Act does no more than replea 274 from April 1 1951 if repeal was at all necessary Ordinance 2 of 1949 which might be supposed to have continued as law till October 31 1951 when it was repealed by Act 66 of 1951
In point of fact and also in law it was really repealed from December 29 1950 under the Repealing Act 66 of 1951
The Vindhya Pradesh Act 6 of 1952 cannot therefore be said to have enacted for the first time that the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act shall come into force from April 1 1951 in Vindhya Pradesh
It only declared what was a legal fact even without this declaration
Nor did the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act owe its existence to Act 6 of of 1952 only declared what the result of the earlier laws was and added the authority of the Vindhya Pradesh Legislature to remove doubts and to save the law from any attack on the ground that the wrong Legislature had repealed the Ordinance or extended the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act
In our opinion this argument cannot be accepted
One further argument was advanced to which we have not referred so far and which may now be noticed
It is that after the reorganisation of the States Madhya Pradesh has as many as four Sales Tax Acts
It is contended that a person belonging to the area of the former State of Madhya Pradesh is not liable to sales tax on building materials in a works contract under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act because of the decision in Pandit Banarsi Das s case1 but another person living in the area forming part of the former Vindhya Pradesh is liable to sales tax under the same Act as extended to Vindhya Pradesh
This it is said is patently contrary to the spirit of the equal protection clause in article 14
The laws in different portions of the new State of Madhya Pradesh were enacted by different Legislatures and under section 119 of the States Reorganisation 275 Act all laws in force are to continue until repealed or altered by the appropriate Legislature
We have already held that the sale tax law in Vindhya Pradesh was validly enacted and it brought its validity with it under section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act when it became a part of the State of Madhya Pradesh
Thereafter the different laws in different parts of Madhya Pradesh can be sustained on the ground that the differentiation arises from historical reasons and a geographical classification based on historical reasons has been upheld by this Court in M K Prithi Rajji vs The State of Rajasthan1 and again in The State of Madhya Pradesh vs The Gwalior Sugar Co Ltd2
The latter case is important because the sugarcane cess levied in the former Gwalior State but not in the rest of Madhya Bharat of which it formed a part was challenged on the same ground as here but was upheld as not affected by article 14
We therefore reject this argument
In the result the Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed but in the circumstances of the case we make no order about costs


Summary:
The appellant was doing business of construction as contractor under Public Works Department in Vindhya Pradesh now Madhya Pradesh
He challenged the levy of Sales Tax on building materials supplied by him for the year 1953 54 to 1958 59
The contention of the Petitioner was that the tax was not leviable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Gannon Dunkerley s case and Pandit Banarsi Das s case
The respondents claimed that the tax was leviable because the case fell within the derision in Mithan Lal s case
The Rajpramukh of the United State of Vindhya Pradesh promulgated the Vindhya Pradesh sales Tax Ordinance 2 of 1949
On Vindhya Pradesh becoming Part C State of India the said ordinance of Rajpramukh was applied to the whole of it with effect from April 1 1950 by notification No 7 of March 28 1951
Under section 2 of the Part C States Laws Act 1950 by notification No SRO 6 dated December 29 1950 the Central Provinces  Berar Sales Tax Act 1947 was extended to Vindhya Pradesh
The notification also added section 29 to the Madhya Pradesh Act so extended by which ordinance 2 of 1949 was repealed
By reason of the decision of this Court in the Delhi Laws Act case the addition of section 29 was unconstitutional
Parliament then enacted the Part C States Misc
Laws Repealing Act 66 of 1951
By section 2 of the Act the Vindhya Pradesh Sales Tax ordinance 1949 was deemed to have been repealed from December 29 1950
The Vindhya Pradesh Laws Validity Act 1952 also provided and declared that Central Provinces  Berar Sales Tax Act 1947 which was extended to Vindhya Pradesh under section 2 of the Part C States Laws Act 1950 has been and shall be deemed to be in force in Vindhya Pradesh from April 1 1951
The said C P  Berar Sales Tax Act defined contract goods sales etc and by these definition the materials used or supplied by 258 a building contractor in the constructions etc were made liable to Sales Tax in accordance with the schedule rates
The question is whether C P been extended for the first time by the Vindhya Pradesh legislature in 1952 when it passed the Vindhya Pradesh Laws Validating Act 1952 to the exclusion of the order contained in the notification No SRO 6 or whether the Act continued to be in force in Vindhya Pradesh even before and all that the Vindhya Pradesh Act did as to remove any doubts about its validity
The rival contentions of the appellant and the respondents are reduced to the proposition that if the State Legislature of Vindhya Pradesh extended the Central Province and Berar Sales Tax Act the extended Act would suffer from disability pointed out in Gannon Dunkerley s case but if the said Act was extended by the notification under Part C States Laws Act 1950 then it must be treated as incorporated in the Act and to have the authority of Parliament which in relation to Part C States had no limitation whatever
 Held that the extended law in the C P  Berar Sales Tax Act 1947 did not depend on the repeal of the earlier law for its validity
It would have been operative even if the earlier law was not repealed but the earlier law was in fact repealed from December 29 1950 and no question of conflict between the new and the old law ever arose
Held further that the Vindhya Pradesh Amending Act made only verbal changes but did not alter the structure of the tax
No doubt that Act contained certain provisions under which sales of building materials are taxable and if the authority to tax the so called sales emanated from a State Legislature then the law would fail
The law was first extended to the Vindhya Pradesh by the Central Government acting under the authority of Parliament legislating for a Part C State
Parliament and the Central Government were not subject to the disabilities pointed out in Gannon Dunkerley s case and the matter was covered by Mithan Lal s case
Even if the notification SRO No 6 failed to repeal ordinance 2 of 1949 Parliament by its own law effaced that ordinance in Vindhya Pradesh from December 29 1950 and enacted that ordinance shall be deemed to be repealed from that day
The ordinance 2 of 1949 did not continue in Vindhya Pradesh down to January 8 1953 because by fiction the ordinance was repealed from December 29 1950
Held also that the laws in different portions of new State of Madhya Pradesh were enacted by different legislatures and under section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act all 259 laws in force in a state were to continue until repealed or altered by the appropriate Legislature
The different sales tax laws in different parts of Madhya Pradesh are valid on the ground that the differentiation arises from historical reasons and a geographical classification based on historical reasons is not affected by article 14 of the Constitution
State of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley  Co   Pandit Banarsidas vs State of Madhya Pradesh   Mithan Lal vs State of Delhi  In re the    Gannon Dunkerley vs State of Madras  Behram Khurshed Pesikaka vs The State of Bombay  Deepchand vs State of Uttar Pradesh 1959 Supp 2 SCR S John M Wilkerson vs Charles A Rahrer 1891 140 U section 545 M K Prithi Rajji vs State of Rajasthan C A No 32756 decided on 2 11 60 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs The Gwalior Sugar Co Ltd C A Nos 98 and 99 of 1957 decided on 30 11 1960 referred to