# STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS v. SUKH DEB SARUI' GUPTA

- **Citation:** [1971] 1 S.C.R. 442
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-04-29
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-punjab-ors-v-sukh-deb-sarui-gupta-5081
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

East Punjab General Sales Tax Acr, 1948-Exemption from tax under
Entry 37, Sch. B for alcoholic preparations on which Excise
duty was
leviable under Punjab Excise Act 1914,-State Act of 1914 superseded by
Central Act-Whed1er exemption still available by virtue of s. 8, Gentral
Clauses Act 1891.
·
The respondent was a manufactur~r of medicinal or toilet preparations
which fell within the definition of "excisable articles" on which excise
duty was payable under s. 3(6)(c) of the Punjab
Bx. cise Act,
1914.
Under s. 6 read with Entry 37 in Schedule B of the East Punjab General
Sales Tax Act, 1948, all goods on which duty was
leviable under the
Punjab Excise Act, 1914, were exempt from the levy of sales tax. After
the commencement of the constitution, alcoholic preparations which, under
the Government of India Act, 1935, were a provincial subject, fell within
the Union List and in 1955 the Union Parliament enacted the Medicinal
and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act. This Central Act repealed
any State laws corresponding to the Act and brought about uniformity in
all States in the imposition of excise duty on alcoholic preparations.
The respondent was assessed to sales tax on alcoholic preparations for
the years 1959-60 to 1961-62 as the Sales Tax authorities considered that
the respondent could no longer claim the benefit of the exemption contained in Entry 37 of Schedule B of the Act. The respondent challenged the
levy of sales tax by a writ petition which was allowed by the High Court
on the view that by virtue of s. 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the
reference in Entry 37 to the Punjab Excise Act must ·be taken to be a
r~fcrence tu the relevant provisions of the Central Act.
On appeal to this Court,
HELD : Dismissing the appeal,
A
B
c
D
E
F
Tire High Court was right in saying that there was nothing in s. 8 of
the General ClallSes Act to indicate that the words "former enactment" in
that provision me.ant only a Central enactment and not a State enactment.
According to s. 3(19) "enactment" shal! include any provision contained
in anv Act. [444 G-HJ
G
Furthermore it could never be intended that when an Act passed by
the Union Parliament repeals a State Act the principle underlying s. 8
should never become applicable. [445 Al
CIVIL APPELLATE JUR18DICT!ON :
Ci~il Appeal No. 528 of
H
1967.
Appeal by speci1I leave from the judment and order dated
April 6, 1966 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal
No. 143 of 1965.
)
PUNJAB v. SUKH DEB (Grover, J.)
443
A
V. c. Mahajan, R. N. Sachthey a,nd B. D. Sharma, for the
B
c
D
E
F
H
appellant.
B. R. L. Iyengar, K. L. Mehta. and S. K. Mehta, for the
respondent.

## Text

442
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
v.
SUKH DEB SARUI' GUPTA
April 29, 1970
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
East Punjab General Sales Tax Acr, 1948-Exemption from tax under
Entry 37, Sch. B for alcoholic preparations on which Excise
duty was
leviable under Punjab Excise Act 1914,-State Act of 1914 superseded by
Central Act-Whed1er exemption still available by virtue of s. 8, Gentral
Clauses Act 1891.
·
The respondent was a manufactur~r of medicinal or toilet preparations
which fell within the definition of "excisable articles" on which excise
duty was payable under s. 3(6)(c) of the Punjab
Bx. cise Act,
1914.
Under s. 6 read with Entry 37 in Schedule B of the East Punjab General
Sales Tax Act, 1948, all goods on which duty was
leviable under the
Punjab Excise Act, 1914, were exempt from the levy of sales tax. After
the commencement of the constitution, alcoholic preparations which, under
the Government of India Act, 1935, were a provincial subject, fell within
the Union List and in 1955 the Union Parliament enacted the Medicinal
and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act. This Central Act repealed
any State laws corresponding to the Act and brought about uniformity in
all States in the imposition of excise duty on alcoholic preparations.
The respondent was assessed to sales tax on alcoholic preparations for
the years 1959-60 to 1961-62 as the Sales Tax authorities considered that
the respondent could no longer claim the benefit of the exemption contained in Entry 37 of Schedule B of the Act. The respondent challenged the
levy of sales tax by a writ petition which was allowed by the High Court
on the view that by virtue of s. 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the
reference in Entry 37 to the Punjab Excise Act must ·be taken to be a
r~fcrence tu the relevant provisions of the Central Act.
On appeal to this Court,
HELD : Dismissing the appeal,
A
B
c
D
E
F
Tire High Court was right in saying that there was nothing in s. 8 of
the General ClallSes Act to indicate that the words "former enactment" in
that provision me.ant only a Central enactment and not a State enactment.
According to s. 3(19) "enactment" shal! include any provision contained
in anv Act. [444 G-HJ
G
Furthermore it could never be intended that when an Act passed by
the Union Parliament repeals a State Act the principle underlying s. 8
should never become applicable. [445 Al
CIVIL APPELLATE JUR18DICT!ON :
Ci~il Appeal No. 528 of
H
1967.
Appeal by speci1I leave from the judment and order dated
April 6, 1966 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal
No. 143 of 1965.
)
PUNJAB v. SUKH DEB (Grover, J.)
443
A
V. c. Mahajan, R. N. Sachthey a,nd B. D. Sharma, for the
B
c
D
E
F
H
appellant.
B. R. L. Iyengar, K. L. Mehta. and S. K. Mehta, for the
respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Grove!, ;J.
This is an appeal by special leave from a judg- ·
ment of the Punjab High Court .holding that medicinal or toilet
preparations containing alchohal were exempt from the payment
of tax under the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter
called "the Act".
The respondent is running a factory for manufacturing spirituous and medicinal preparations containing alchohal at Jind in the
district of Sangrur. Before the coming into force of the Constitution of India on January 26, 1950 "meqicinal or toilet preparations" fell within the definition of "excisable articles" on which
the excise duty was payable under s. 3(6)(c) of the Punjab
Excise Act 1914. The Act came into force Hi 1948. Under its
provisions tax was levied on t)le sale of goods with the exception
of articles exempted under s. 6' of the Act.
These articles were
given in Schedule B wherein F.ntry 37 was in these terms :
"All goods on which d~ty is or may be levied under
the Punjab Excise Act, 19\4."
·
After the enforcement of the Constitution alcoholic preparations
which under the Government of India Act 1935 was a provincial
subject came to be dealt with in the Union List.
Section 3 ( 6 )( c)
of the Punjab Excise Act was, therefore, omitted by the Adaptation of Laws Order 1950. However, by virtue of Art. 277 of
the Constitution the State Government continued ·to levy and
collect the excise duty on the above articles even after January
26, 1950. In 1955 the Union Parliament enacted the Medicinal
and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties). Act, hereinafter referred
to as the "Central Act". Section 21 of the Central Act provided :
"If, immediately before the commencement of this
Aci, there is in force in any State any law correspond· .
ing fo this Act, that law is hereby repealed."
The effect of the Central Act was to bring about uniformity in all
States in the imposition of excise duty on alcoholic preparations.
It is common ground that the collection of the duty leviable under
the Central Act continued to be done by the State Government
and the duty so callected went to the State Excheq11er.
The respondent was assessed to -sales tax on alcohQlic preparations on
which excise duty was being levied under the Central Act by the
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971) 1 S.C.R.
State authorities for the years 1959-60, 1960-61
and 1961-62.
According to the appellant State it was entitled to levy sales tax
on alcoholic preparations of the nature which were covered by
the Central Act, for the reason that the respondent could no longer
claim the benefit of the exemption contained in Entry 3 7 of Schedule B to the Act.
The respondent filed a petition under Art. 226
of the Constitution challenging the levy of sales tax on the alcoholic preparations on which excise duty was being paid under the
Central Act.
This petition succeeded before a learned Single
Judge of the High Court who held that by virtue of s. 8 of the
General Clauses Act 1897 in Entry 37 reference to the · Punjab
Excise Act must be taken to be a reference to the relevant provi·
sions of the Central Act. According to him the State could not
levy any sales tax under the Act on the preparations' in question.
His judgment was affinned by a division bench and the appeal
filed by the State was dismissed.
The short point which falls to be determined is whether &. 8
of the General Clauses Act 1897 would govern the case and
whether the respondent could claim the benefit of the exemption
in Entry 37 of Schedule B to the Act notwithstanding that the
exemption relat.ed expressly only to goods on which duty could
be levied under the Punjab Excise Act 1914.
Section 8(1) of
the General Clauses Act provides :
"8 ( 1) Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regula·
tion made after the commencement of this Act,
repeals and re-enacts, with or without modifies·
tion, any provision of a former enactment, then
references in any other enactment or in any
instrument to the provision so repealed
~a!l,
ur.less a different intention appears, be constru·
ed as ref-.rences to the provision so re-enact·
ed."
According to s. 3 (19) of that Act "enactment" shall include any
provision contained in any Act.
On behalf of the State it has
been argued that the words "former enactment" in s. 8 can refer
only to a Central Act or provisions contained therein and they
cannot cover Acts passed by the State legislature. Such an argument cannot be entertained because it goes against the express
language of s. 3(19) which does not lay down any such limitation.
The obvious meaning of that provision is that enactment would
include any Act or provision contained therein passed by :he
Union Parliament or the State Legislature.
The limited meaning
sought to be attributed to the word "enactment" cannot be given
to it for another reason
It could never be intended that when
an Act passed by the Union Parliament repeals a State Act the
A
B
c
D
E
t
F
G
H
A
B
c
PUNJAB v. SUKH DEB (Grover, J.)
445
principle underlying s. 8 should never become applicable.
The
High Court, in our opinion, was right in saying that there was
nothing in s. 8 to indicate that the words "former enactment"
meant only a Central enactment and not a State enactment and
that the courts would not be justified to read in that section words
which were not there and to place a narrow and limited consu-uc·
tion on the words "former enactment." It has not been disputed
on behalf of the appellant that if s. 8 is applicable the respondent
would .be exempt from payment of tax under the Act on the
alcoholic preparations on which excise duty is being levied under
the provisions of the .Central Act.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.