SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Large Bench)

Before:- S.P. Bharucha, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, R.C. Lahoti, N. Santosh Hegde, Doraiswamy Raju, Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1230 of 1970. D/d. 05.02.2002.

WITH

C.A.No. 1231/1970, W.P.(C) Nos. 251/1974, 5/1974,131/1979,330/1979,3738/1985,3693/1983,9255/1983,3062-63/1985,500- 04/1974,891/1986,C.A. Nos.1789/1979, 2289/1978,5622/1983,2534-2535/1987,546- 569/1979,5545-78/83,5885/1983,W.P.(C) Nos.380/1988,342/1988,1051/1988, C.A. Nos.4003-04/1983, 2593/1983,7329/1993,3324/1984,T.P. (C) No. 350/1997, S.L.P. (C) Nos. 10050/1980,9635/1985,9850/1979,1959/1980, 1562/1987,10686/1985, 4404/1988, 3450/1988 and 14667/1997.W.P. (C) Nos.515/1974,3738/1985,3062- 63/1985 and 891/1986

Intelligence Officer of Sales Tax & Ors. - Appellants

Versus

Yogesh Trading Co. Ltd. - Respondents

A. Uttar Pradesh Sales Act, 1948, Sections 28-A, 28-C, 28-D and 15(A)(o)(As amended in 1973) - Constitution of India, Articles 136 and 32 - Provisions of Sections 28-A, 28-C, 28-D and 15(A)(o) were struck down by High Court as being beyond the competence of the State Legislature - Pending these appeals, sections were substituted making provision for safeguards - Amended Sections were again challenged before the High Court - High Court upheld their constitutionality but said that they were inoperative because there was no effective notification - Those judgments of High Court are under challenge in a separate batch of appeals - Thereafter in 1983, an amendment was effected again and given retrospective effect from 27.9.1979 - Now, by reason of subsequent developments, Sections, as originally enacted, no longer remain on statute book - Question whether they were within the competence of the State Legislature or not is inconsequential - Held, Court should not, in these circumstances, take time to decide a purely the oretical issue.

[Para ]

B. Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, Sections 29(3), (4) and (5) - Constitution of India, Articles 19(1)(g) and 301 - Sections 29(3), (4) and (5) were struck down by High Court as being violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 301 of Constitution of India - State of Kerala preferred these appeals therefrom - In the meantime, Section 29A was inserted by Legislature of State of Kerala providing for detention of goods at check point but without investing in officer concerned power of confiscating the same, in terms of the High Court judgment - Held, in these circumstances, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether Sections 29(3), (4) and (5), as originally enacted, were not violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 301.

[Para ]

ORDER

W.P. (C) Nos. 515/1974, 3738/1985, 3062-63/1985 and 891/1986:

1. On the application of learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn, having become in fructuous.

W.P. (C) Nos.131/1979, 330/1979,3693/1983,9255/1983,500/1974, 1051/1988, 251/74 and 501-504/1974,

2. The writ petitioners are not represented. The writ petitions are dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 1789 of 1979:

3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that she is not in a position to go on with the matter. The civil appeal is dismissed.

S.L.P. (C) No.14667/1997 and T.P. (C) No. 350/1997:

4. On the application of learned counsel for the petitioners, the special leave petition and transfer petition are dismissed as withdrawn.

C.A. Nos.2289/1978,546-69/1979,2534-35/87,4003-04/83,2593/83, 3324/1984,5885/1983 and S.L.P. (C) Nos.10686/1985, 9850/1979 and 1959/1980:

5. Delay condoned in S.L.P. (C) No. 10686 of 1985.

6. All these civil appeals relate to Sections 28 - A, 28 - C, 28 - D and 15(A)(o) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948, as amended in 1973. These sections were struck down by the High Court as being beyond the competence of the State Legislature. Pending these appeals, the sections were substituted making provision for safeguards. The amended sections were again challenged before the High Court. The High Court upheld their constitutionality but said that they were inoperative because there was no effective notification. Those judgments of the High Court are under challenge in a separate batch of appeals. In1983, an amendment was effected again and given retrospective effect from 27th September, 1979.Now, by reason of these subsequent developments, the sections, as originally enacted, no longer remain on the statute book and the question of whether they were within the competence of the State Legislature or not is of little consequence. A seven-Judge Bench of this Court should not, in these circumstances, take time to decide what has become a purely theoretical issue.

7. The civil appeals and special leave petition are dismissed.

8. No order as to costs.

C.A.Nos.5545-78/1983,5622/1983,7329/1993,W.P.(C)Nos. 380/1988 & 342/1988 and S.L.P.(C) Nos.9635/1985,1562/1987 and 3450/1988:

9. These are the second batch of appeals referred to in the order just passed in Civil Appeal No. 2289 of 1978 and connected matters. Again, by reason of subsequent developments, these appeals, writ petitions and special leave petitions have been rendered in fructuous and they are disposed of as such.

10. No order as to costs.

S.L.P. (C) No. 4404/1988:

11. A review petition filed before the High Court has upheld the validating Act of 1983. There is no challenge to the order of review. Subsequent events have also renderedthis special leave petition in fructuous and it is disposed of as such.

Civil Appeal Nos.1230 - 1231/1970:

12. Sections 29(3), (4) and (5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 were struck down by the High Court as being violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution of India. The State of Kerala preferred these appeals there from. In the meantime, Section 29-A was inserted by the Legislature of the State of Kerala. It was, in effect, in terms of the High Court judgment in that it provided for detention of goods at check point but without investing in the officer concerned the power of confiscating the same. It seems to us, in these circumstances, unnecessary to go into the question whether Sections 29(3), (4) and (5), as originally enacted, were not violative of the afore-mentioned Articles.

13. The High Court had struck down Rule 35, which followed upon Section 29. That Rule has been replaced by Rule 35-A, which follows upon Section 29-A.

14. We note the contention of learned counsel for the State that Section 29 was valid because its validity is covered by two decisions of this Court but it is not a question that need detainus, having regard to the circumstances afore - mentioned.

15. The civil appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.

16. No order as to costs.

S.L.P. (C) No. 10050/1980:

17. In view of the subsequent events, the special leave petition does not survive for consideration. The special leave petition is dismissed.

.