Civil Appeal No 710 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 851990 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No 3257 of 1989
GL Sanghi Harish N Salve HK Puri Rajeev Sharma Ravinder Nath VB Saharya PK Jain and Prem Malhotra for the Appellants
YS Chitale TS Krishnamurthy Iyer RL Jain SK Tredal Kitty Kumarmanglam RP Dave and Ashok Mathur for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT J
SLP C No 12 1 11 of 1990
Leave granted
This appeal raises the question of the validity and interpretation of Section 14 D of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act
In companion matters we have already pronounced upon the validity and interpretation of Section 14 B of the Act
Hence it is not necessary to discuss in this judgment the points which are common to both sections
These points will be deemed to have been concluded by the said decision
The only point which remains to be dealt with and is peculiar to Section 14 D is whether to claim possession of such premises under the said Section the landlady must become a widow after the premises are let out either by herself or her husband
Section 14 D of the Act reads as follows 14 D Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to a widow 1 Where the landlord is a widow and the premises let out by her 2 or by her husband are required by her for her own residence she may apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such premises
383 2 Where the landlord referred to in sub section 1 has let out more than one premises it shall be open to her to make an application under that sub section in respect of any one of the premises chosen by her
The object of the Act as stated in its preamble is to provide for the control of rents and evictions and of rates of hotels and lodging houses and for the lease of vacant premises to Government in certain areas in the Union Territory of Delhi
The original Act came into force on February 9 1959 having received the assent of the President on December 31 1958
The working of the Act disclosed certain deficiencies inconveniences and hardships both to the landlords and the tenants
Their associations therefore made representations
Various committees and commissions also recommended amendments of certain provisions of the Act
Considering the grievances of the landlords and the tenants as well as the recommendations of the committeescommissions the Act was amended in 1988 with the object of a rationalising the law by bringing out the balance between the interests of landlords and tenants b giving a boost to house building activity and maintaining the existing housing stock in a reasonable state of repairs c reducing litigation between landlords and tenants and of ensuring expeditious disposal of disputes between them
By this amendment Sections 14 B to 14 D were added
The object of Section 14 D is obvious
It is to assist a vulnerable and needy section of the Society to recover possession of the premises as expeditiously as Possible and without the usual trials and tribulations
We have already held in the accompanying judgment that classified landlords such as the widow landlady under Section 14 D can apply for possession of the premises under the respective provisions even if the premises are not let for residence
It is not necessary to repeat the said discussion in this judgment
Section 14 D makes no distinction between the landladies who become widows before and after letting out of the premises
It merely says that where the landlady is a widow and the premises are let out by her or by her husband are required by her for her own residence she may apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such premises
The language of the section in that respect is very clear
The premises might have been let out by her as a widow or they might have been let out by her husband or even by herself before she had become widow
The legislature wanted to give a special privilege to the landlady who is a widow notwithstanding whether the premises were let out before or after she became widow
Such conferment of special benefit on a 384 widow landlady is permissible even under the provisions of Article 153 of the Constitution which is an express exception to the provisions of sub clauses 1 and 2 of that Article
It states that nothing in the said Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children
A widow is undoubtedly a vulnerable person in our society and requires special protection
We further see no merit in the contention that if the benefit given by Section 14 D is allowed to be availed of by widows they may make a business of it
There is no warrant for such apprehension
For in the first instance the right to recover possession under Section 14 D can be availed of by the widow only once
That is a sufficient guarantee against the abuse of the privilege granted by the section
Secondly she has to prove her bona fide need for the occupation of the premises in question for her own residence like any other landlord
Thirdly the provisions of Section 19 of the Act come into play in her case also when the order for possession on the ground of bona fide requirement for occupation as residence is made in her favour
In this view of the matter we find no substance in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs
Writ Petition No 902 of 1990 7
In the view that we have taken above it is not necessary to admit this writ petition
The authorities under the Act while disposing of the applications under Section 14 D will have to abide by this decision and not by the decision of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No 2686 of 1989 in the matter of Dr PP Kapur vs Union of India  Ors
which was brought to our notice and stands overruled
RSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act 1948 despatched some part of the manufactured goods outside the state without paying the tax on the taxable raw material consumed in the manufacture of such goods
The assessing authority issued a show cause notice for the assessee s failure to pay the said tax
Interest was also demanded on the tax amount
The assesses disputed its liability to pay penalty and interest on the amount of tax withheld on the plea that there was no wilful default on its part as it was under a bona fide belief that no tax was to be paid on the raw material used in the manufactured goods sent outside State
The assesses further stated that it had acted on legal advice that it was not liable to pay any Purchase Tax and therefore in the absence of a clear intention to avoid the payment of tax there could be no question of imposition of penalty and demand for interest
The assessee s submissions did not find favour with the Revenue as also the Tribunal and the assesses sought a reference to the High Court under section 221 of the Act
But the Tribunal rejected application for reference
Thereafter the assesses preferred appeals to this Court against the Tribunal s rejection of reference as also the Tribunal s order in appeal
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the main question involved in this case is concluded by several decisions of this Court and it was not liable to pay the tax as demanded by the Revenue
On behalf of the Revenue it was contended that the assesses was liable to pay the tax on the raw materials used in the manufactured goods sent outside the State
Allowing the appeals this Court 348 HELD 11 Under Section 4B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act 1948 the tax becomes exigible not on the purchase of the raw material or on the use thereof in the manufacture of a new and distinct commodity but only after the goods so manufactured are despatched to a place outside the State
Once the goods are sent outside the State the purchaser is made liable to pay the tax at the rate prescribed on the purchase of such goods provided no tax is payable on the purchase thereof under any other provision of the Act
It is obvious that the tax though described as purchase tax is in effect a tax on consignment since it becomes effective on the happening of an event which has nothing to do with the actual purchase
Even if the raw material is used in the manufacture of any taxable goods the purchaser does not become liable to pay tax on the raw material until the manufactured item is sent out of the State
And between the manufacture of the goods out of the purchased raw material and their actual despatch outside the State there may be a long time gap
The liability of tax only after despatch of the manufactured goods outside the State and that event may have no relation to the actual purchase or manufacture
That being so the tax though described as a purchase tax is actually a tax on the consigmment of the manufactured goods the levy of which is beyond the competence of the State as the power to impose such tax is vested in Parliament by virtue of clause h of Article 2691 of the Constitution read with Entry 92B in Schedule 7 List 1
352H 353A E 354B 12
Even though the language of section 4B of the Act is not identical to section 91 of the Haryana Sales Tax Act it is in substance similar in certain respects particularly in respect of the point of time when the liability to pay tax arises
Under that provision also the liability to pay purchase tax on the raw material purchased in the State which was consumed in the manufacture of any other taxable goods arose only on the despatch of the goods outside the State
353D E Ms Goodyear India Ltd vs State of Haryana   applied
State of Tamil Nadu vs M K Kandaswami etc  19761 1 SCR 38 referred to
Since the Revenue was not entitled to levy the tax which it purported to levy as purchase tax on the raw material there can be no question of imposition of penalty or interest on the unpaid amount of tax
Therefore the action taken in exercise of power under section 106 and section 11D of the Act cannot be allowed to stand
354G H 349