Case: Ram Bharosey Lal Krishan Kumar Vs. State of U.P

6. The appellant is a partnership firm. It carries on business as dealers in groundnuts, oil seeds and Arhar. For the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 the Sales Tax Officer, Rampur assessed the appellant to sales tax on the turnover of the groundnuts oil manufactured by the appellant and to purchase tax on the turnover of the oil seeds and food grains. The appellant unsuccessfully appealed against the assessment orders. Thereafter it took up the matter in revision before the revising authority. There again it substantially failed. Aggrieved by that decision, he moved the High Court of Allahabad for a writ of certiorari quashing the levy of purchase tax imposed on him in respect of his purchase of oil seeds. The High Court rejected those petitions. Hence these appeals.

Reasoning: 14. It may be noted that s. 3-D was incorporated into the Act much later than s. 3AA. As seen earlier s. 3AA was incorporated into the Act on April 1, 1956 whereas s. 3-D was added on August 1, 1958. At the time the legislature incorporated into the Act sec. 3-D. it must have been aware of the existence of sec. 3AA but yet in sub-s. (4) of s. 3-D, it declared that on the issue of a notification under that section, no tax shall be levied under any other section in respect of the goods so notified. The ambit of this provision is very wide and it clearly takes in goods mentioned in sec. 3AA.15. Now turning to s. 3AA, it is important to note that it begins by saying "notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 or 3-A". The non-obstents clause does not take in s. 3-D. If the legislature intended to exclude the operation of s. 3-D, in respect of matters covered by s. 3AA, nothing would have been easier than to say so. It could have said "notwithstanding anything contained in s. 3, 3-A and s. 3-D." But it did not choose to do that. Therefore there are no grounds to cut down the applitude of the power conferred on the State Government under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 3-D.16. The High Court of Allahabad has consistently taken the view that it is open to the State Government to levy purchase tax in exercise of its powers under sec. 3-D even in respect of goods covered by sec. 3AA. We are in agreement with that view.We have considered the first ground of attack in Civil Appeals Nos. 362 and 1969 (M/s. Sita Ram Bishambhar Dayal etc. vs. State of U.P.) in which we have delivered judgment just now. For the reasons mentioned therein, the contention that sec.(1) is ultra vires the Constitution fails.If we hold that provisions contained in s. 3AA continue to be in force in respect of dealing in oil seeds than the appellants contention that the impugned levy is an invalid levy succeeds. But the question is whether that contention is correct.