Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4093 of 1991
PETITIONER:
M/S SOMAIYA ORGANICS (INDIA) LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/04/2001
BENCH:
RUMA PAL
JUDGMENT:
WithC.A. No. 2853 of 2001
(@ SLP(C) No. 20018 of 1991)
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
J U D G M E N T
RUMA PAL, J
While I respectfully concur with the reasoning and
conclusions reached by my learned brother Kirpal, J., I wish
to add my views on an aspect of the prospective
over-ruling which was sought to be effected by the decision
of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Synthetics and
Chemicals Ltd. and Others vs. State of U.P. and others
1990 (1) SCC 109.
One of the arguments of the appellant as noted by my
learned brother was that the Court in the Synthetics case
by resorting to prospective over-ruling had in a fact sought
to uphold a law upto the period of the judgment which law
had held to have been passed without competence. It is
submitted that the finding that the States were not
competent to levy tax on industrial alcohol meant that the
State Acts were non est and that the Court could not by
giving prospective effect to its judgment breathe life into
a dead statute up to the date of the judgment. It was also
contended by the appellant that even under Article 142, the
Court could not whittle down or act in derogation of any
constitutional provision. By declaring that the statute was
valid up to the date of the judgment, according to the
appellant, the specific constitutional provisions, namely,
Articles 246 and Article 245 were infringed. Reliance has
been placed on the decision of this Court in Prem Chand Garg
vs. Excise Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad 1963 (1) SCR 885
and Supreme Court Bar Association V. Union of India and
Another 1998 (4) SCC 409.
The argument of the appellant proceeds on a
misunderstanding of the effect of prospective over-ruling.
As has been elaborately stated in my learned brothers
judgment, by prospective over-ruling the Court does not
grant the relief claimed even after holding in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
claimants favour. In this case, the Court held that the
statutory provision imposing vend fee was invalid. Strictly
speaking, this would have entitled the appellant to a refund
from the respondents of all amounts collected by way of vend
fee. But because, as stated in the Synthetics decision
itself, over a period of time imposts and levies had been
imposed by virtue of the earlier decision and that the
States as well as the petitioners and manufacturers had
adjusted their rights and their positions on that basis,
this relief was denied. The Court did not, by denying the
relief, authorise or validate what had been declared to be
illegal or void nor did it imbue the legislature with
competence upto the date of the judgment.