Skip to content


Sadik Mian and anr. Vs. Ram Dhyan Hajam and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 310 of 1970
Judge
Reported in(1982)3SCC372
ActsAssam Taxation (on Goods Carried by Road or Inland Waterways) Act, 1961 - Section 34(1)
AppellantSadik Mian and anr.
RespondentRam Dhyan Hajam and ors.
DispositionAppeal Dismissed
Excerpt:
.....by virtue of section 34 of 1961 act -- the atiabari tea co. who is appellant before us has chosen to challenge the judgment of the high court upholding the assessment of tax under the assam taxation (on goods carried by road or inland waterways) act, 1961 (assam act 10 of 1961), the vires of which have been sustained by this court although the high court had earlier declared it void. this act was also challenged and declared void by the high court, in reversal of whose judgment this court upheld it. when the court disposed of the appeals the present appeal alone was remanded to the high court for the decision of a short question of limitation. on remand the high court considered the narrow question of limitation and overruled that objection......34(1) of act 10 of 1961. there is no doubt that if all the actions done and proceedings taken under the earlier act have been revived and validated by virtue of section 34 of the later act the plea of limitation has no substance. mr majumdar urged before us that in view of the fact that the notices issued under the earlier act had been withdrawn by the revenue, section 34 could not revive the withdrawn notices. we do not agree. the high court was right in holding that the notices were issued in time under the old act and that the levies had been made properly under the old act but that in view of that legislation being struck down those notices were withdrawn formally. section 34 could and did revive and validate every action earlier taken. once this view taken by the high court.....
Judgment:

Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.,; R.S. Pathak and; E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.

1. The Atiabari Tea Co. who is appellant before us has chosen to challenge the judgment of the High Court upholding the assessment of tax under the Assam Taxation (on Goods Carried by Road or Inland Waterways) Act, 1961 (Assam Act 10 of 1961), the vires of which have been sustained by this Court although the High Court had earlier declared it void.

2. The Assam legislature passed Assam Act 13 of 1954 which received the assent of the Governor on April 9, 1954 and came into force on April 24, 1954. Taxes were levied on tea in chests carried by road or inland waterways pursuant to the provisions of that Act. The vires of that legislation was successfully challenged in this Court in the first round of litigation but later, complying with the requirements of the Constitution, the Assam legislature passed Assam Act 10 of 1961. This Act was also challenged and declared void by the High Court, in reversal of whose judgment this Court upheld it. When the Court disposed of the appeals the present appeal alone was remanded to the High Court for the decision of a short question of limitation. Otherwise, the entire Act was upheld and all contentions overruled. On remand the High Court considered the narrow question of limitation and overruled that objection.

3. The reasoning of the High Court appears to us impeccable especially in the light of the comprehensive validating provision in Section 34(1) of Act 10 of 1961. There is no doubt that if all the actions done and proceedings taken under the earlier Act have been revived and validated by virtue of Section 34 of the later Act the plea of limitation has no substance. Mr Majumdar urged before us that in view of the fact that the notices issued under the earlier Act had been withdrawn by the Revenue, Section 34 could not revive the withdrawn notices. We do not agree. The High Court was right in holding that the notices were issued in time under the old Act and that the levies had been made properly under the old Act but that in view of that legislation being struck down those notices were withdrawn formally. Section 34 could and did revive and validate every action earlier taken. Once this view taken by the High Court has our assent there is nothing that remains to be considered. We dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //