Author: TYC

ISSUE:

Whether the publication of tax proposals and draft rules under Section 131(3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act mandatory or directory and was the process validly followed in this case?

Whether Section 135(3) conclusively validates the imposition of a tax despite procedural defects under Sections 131 and 94(3)?

RULE:

Mandatory vs. Directory Compliance: Provisions requiring public objections for taxation (Section 131(3), first part) are mandatory as they ensure taxpayer participation, while the manner of publication (Section 94(3)) is directory, requiring substantial rather than strict compliance.

Conclusive Proof Doctrine: Section 135(3) establishes that a notification in the Government Gazette serves as conclusive proof that the tax has been imposed in accordance with the Act, provided there is at least substantial compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements.

ISSUE:

Whether the impugned notification (No. 142/86-Cus.) was validly promulgated and enforceable, given the alleged delay in making it known to the affected parties?

Whether the notification violated the conditions prescribed under Section 25(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, by effectively imposing a new duty not provided for under the statutory provisions?

Whether the enhanced duty constituted an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?

RULE:

A notification or subordinate legislation acquires enforceability upon its publication in the Official Gazette, which is deemed sufficient for making the law known within the territory it operates.

Taxes or duties, including customs duties, are not per se violative of Article 19(1)(g) unless they destroy the right to carry on trade or business, with excessiveness alone not constituting a violation.

ISSUE:

Does the State Government possess the authority under its executive power to prescribe textbooks for use in schools prior to the enactment of specific statutory provisions?

Is the prescription of textbooks by the State Government and the Board consistent with the principles of non-discrimination under Article 14 and the right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?

RULE:

Executive Power of the State (Article 162): The State Government can exercise executive power in matters where it has legislative competence, even in the absence of specific statutory provisions, provided such actions do not infringe upon the rights of individuals.

Principle of Ultra Vires: Statutory bodies, such as the Board of Secondary Education, can only exercise powers expressly conferred upon them by their enabling statute. Powers not explicitly granted or necessarily implied are deemed ultra vires and invalid.

ISSUE:

Whether the Jaipur Opium Act, 1923, enacted by a resolution of the Council of Ministers, without promulgation or publication, constituted valid law?

Whether the retrospective amendment of the Jaipur Opium Act in 1938 could validate the law retroactively without original compliance with promulgation or publication requirements?

RULE:

A law cannot become operative unless it is promulgated or published in a recognisable manner, ensuring the public can reasonably access and understand it.

In the absence of specific legal provisions or customary rules, the principles of natural justice require that laws affecting rights and liberties must be brought to public notice through adequate publication.

ISSUE:

Whether the notification issued under Section 6(5) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964, was invalid due to non-publication in Gujarati in a local newspaper?

Whether the procedural requirements of publication under Section 6(5), as read with Section 5, are mandatory or directory?

RULE:

Procedural safeguards in statutes with penal consequences, especially those restricting trade, are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to, as they protect the rights of affected parties by ensuring proper notice and opportunity for objections.

The term "shall" is presumptively mandatory, especially where it governs actions that significantly impact legal rights, unless there is compelling evidence of legislative intent to treat it as directory.