Veda Vyas attempted to contend that the vires of the Act could be challenged if not under Art. 31 of the Constitution ? 136 of the Constitution which leave was granted by this Court by its order dated April 15, 1955. In case the Court had actually enunciated, as a proposition of law, that auction is the only permissible method or mode for alienation/allotment of natural resources, the same would have found a mention in the summary at the end of the judgment. 6, 7 and 8 does not support the case that in prescribing its several items it was intended that the transactions failing under s.

299(4) which says that nothing in s. We are not inclined to accept this argument. It is conceded that cl. 31(2) cannot be invoked to challenge the validity of the Act. On looking at this form it seems difficult to entertain the argument that the claim for the total exclusion of the transactions in question can be made under any of the headings prescribed in the form. In the circumstances, we have no other option but to remand the case to the High Supreme Court lawyers for disposal in accordance with law.

(2) shall affect the provisions of any existing law other than the law to which the provisions of cl. It is sufficient to refer to only one of them. The form as it has been prescribed construed in the light of the material provisions contained in ss. 33 should be first shown under item 1 and then excluded under one or the other of the remaining items of deduction. 28 permits the imposition of such a condition does it violate Art. Besides it may be relevant to point out that the heading of Chapter VII which deals with the submission of returns by dealers is " return of taxable turnover " and it is arguable that the gross turnover mentioned in Form VI may mean "gross taxable turnover " and not the gross turnover including the transactions which are outside the scope of the Act.

If the provisions of r. If that was so, it would be equally open to the Authority to specify a period for more than five years which it may consider reasonable. Form VI which has been prescribed for 344 making the returns under s. Further, the final conclusions summarized in paragraph 102 of the judgment (SCC) in 2G case make no mention about auction being the only permissible and intra vires method for disposal of natural resources; the findings are limited to the case of spectrum.

It is not seriously disputed that Art. 31(2) at least under s. The appellant, however, contends that the first item of gross turnover means the whole of the gross turnover which must include all sale transactions whether they took place within Bihar or outside it, and in support of this argument reliance is placed on the definition of " turnover " contained in s. The learned counsel for the respondent does not accept this position. 299 shall affect the provisions 251 of any law in force at the date of the passing of the Act; (6) does not apply to the Act, so that it follows that Art.

299(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935; but he realised that he was up against a similar difficulty created by the provisions of s. We do not think that this was the intention of the legislature and the reason why no other provision was made for the duration of a renewal was that the legislature intended by these words in s. By a further order dated September 19, 1955, both the appeals were consolidated for the purposes of printing of the record and for filing of the (1)[1955] 1 S.

That is the next question which must be considered. 21 are inapplicable to sales held by receivers it is obvious that the second condition prescribed by r. In our opinion this fact clearly emphasises the inapplicability of the whole rule to sales held by receivers. It is represented to us by the learned counsel for the appellant that Lawyers in Supreme Court of India the High Court the only 311 point argued was that the amendment should have been allowed and no other point was pressed.

89(1)(b) is equally inapplicable and it is undoubtedly one of the two essential conditions for the successful prosecution of an application under the said rule. In Arunachellam Chetty v. If the whole of the gross turnover has to be mentioned under item 1, it is urged, the claim for the exclusion of the transactions in question can well be adjusted under one or the other of the deduction items prescribed in the form. The value to be attached to the decisions of the Inam Commissioner had come up for consideration before the Judicial Committee in a series of cases.

This form was prescribed in 1949 and has not been amended after the addition of s. 31(5) provides inter alia that nothing in cl. 12 requires the gross turnover to be mentioned at the outset, and then it provides for the different deductions allowable under the Act. On December 20, 1954, the appellant applied for special leave to appeal against the said order of the Tribunal under Art. 58(2) that the renewal would be for such period as was prescribed in s.

31(2) on which reliance is placed by the petitioners cannot be of much help to them for Art. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Supreme Court of India Lawyers was right is refusing to entertain the appellants' application under 0.