P. P. G. DAVID,Petitioner, and THE GOVERNMENT AGENT, HAMBANTOTA, Respondent

014-NLR-NLR-V-71-P.-P.-G.-DAVIDPetitioner-and-THE-GOVERNMENT-AGENT-HAMBANTOTA-Respondent.pdf


T. S. FERNANDO, J.—David v. Government Agent, Hambantota
67
Present: T. S. Fernando, J.P.P. G. DAVID, Petitioner, and THE GOVERNMENT- AGENT, HAMBANTOTA, Respondent
8. C. 243 of 1967—Application for Revision in M. C. TangaUe, 33456
Interpretation of statutes—Amendment of a statute by a statute dealing with a varietyof subjects—Validity—Effect of repeal of a statute on proceedings initiatedprior to such repeal—Interpretation Ordinance (Cap. 2), s. 6 (3)—Heavy Oil. Motor Vehicles Taxation Ordinance (Cap. 249), as amended by Acts Nos. 20of 1961, 37 of 1964 and s. 22 of Act No. 2 of 1963—Finance (Special Provisions)Act, No. 10 of 1965, s. 2.
A statute relating to a particular subject may be amended by a subsequentstatute-covering a wide range of subjeots. Accordingly, the amendment ofsection 2 of the Heavy Oil Motor Vehicles Taxation Ordinance by section 22
– of the Finance (No. 2) Act No. 2 of 1963 is valid.
' * '
Section 6 (3) of tho Interpretation Ordinance enables proceedings initiatedunder the Heavy Oil Motor Vehicles Taxation Ordinance before the latterwas repealed by section 2 of the Finance (Special Provisions) Act, No. 10 of1966, to be carried on and completed as if there had been no repeal.
A pplication to revise an order of the Magistrate’s Court, Tangalle.
B. Vannitamby, for the petitioner.
Mustapha, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
August 3, 1967. T. S. Febnando, J.—
The proceedings in this case were initiated in the Magistrate’s Courton April 20, 1965, when the-Government Agent issued a certificate interms of section 4 (1) of the Heavy Oil Motor Vehicles Taxation Ordinance{Cap: 249) as amended by Acts Nos. 20 of 1961 and 37 of 1964 specifyingthat a sum of Rs. 4,250 was due from the petitioner in respect of tax onheavy oil motor vehicle No. I. C. 3199 for certain periods between June1963 to December 1964. On March 17, 1966 the Government Agentissued another certificate in respect of the said sum purporting to be anamended certificate in terms of the said section 4 (1), as amended byAct No. 20 of 1961 and section 22 of Act No. 2 of 1963 read with Orderunder section 2 (7) of the last mentioned Act published in Gazette No.13,620 of 29th April 1963 and as further amended by Act No. 37 of 1964.The amended certificate appears to have been occasioned by the omissionof the Government Agent to refer in the original certificate to the Orderand the Gazette in which it appears.
68
T. S. FERNANDO, J.—David v. Government Agent, Hambantota
The Magistrate directed on July 30,1966 that the said sum be recoveredfrom the petitioner as though it were a fine imposed upon him. An appealwas presented against this order, but this Court, upholding the oontentionthat no appeal was competent, rejected the said appeal. This revisionapplication sought to question the legality of the Magistrate’s Order.
To appreciate the points raised by the petitioner, it is necessary tounderstand the nature of the relevant legislation. The Heavy OilMotor Vehicles Taxation Ordinance (Cap. 249) provided for the imposi-tion of a tax on motor vehicles using uncustomed oil as fuel. In viewof section 2 of the Ordinance, the tax was to be determined in accordancewith the rates prescribed in the First Schedule thereto. Section 4 of theOrdinance provided for tax in default being recovered in the same maimeras a fine imposed by a Magistrate’s Court upon a certificate issued by theGovernment Agent. An amendment of the Ordinance effected bysection 22 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2 of 1963 added a new sub-section
to section 2 of the Ordinance providing for the rates prescribed inthe First Schedule to the Ordinance being varied by the Minister ofFinance from time to time by Order published in the Gazette. A variationwas effected by Order under section 2 (7) of the Ordinance made by theMinister of Finance and published in Gazette 13,620 of 29th April 1963.Shortly put, the effect of that Order was to double the tax prescribedin the said First Schedule. The amended certificate (which is the opera-tive certificate in this case) issued by the Government Agent on March17, 1966 was designed to recover tax at the enhanced rate.
By section 2 of the Finance (Special Provisions) Act, No. 10 of 1965,the Heavy Oil Motor Vehicles Taxation Ordinance was repealed witheffect from January 1, 1966. The first point raised by the petitionerwas that the amended certificate, being one issued after the repeal ofthe Ordinance (Cap. 249), was of no force or effect. Learned Counselappearing for him drew my attention to an unreported decision (seeApplication No. 337/66—M. C. Puttalam 18761) of 7th October 1966where this Court has held that a Magistrate had no jurisdiction to makean order for attachment of a motor vehicle for non-payment of heavyoil tax after the repeal of the Ordinance came into effect. With muchrespect, it is apparent that the Court on that occasion failed to considerthe application of the Interpretation Ordinance (Cap. 2) to the pointthat arose before it. Section 6 (3) thereof enabled the proceedingswhich had been initiated in the case now before me and which werepending when the repealing law came into operation to be carried onand completed as if there had been no repeal. It is in the circumstancesunnecessary to consider whether other provisions of the same section6 (3) also enabled the recovery of the tax to be effected notwithstandingthe repeal. The first point relied on therefore failed.
The other point relied on was based on the fact that the doubling of thetax was effected by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2 of 1963. It was contendedthat, the tax itself being one imposed bv section 2 of the Heavy Oil
Atxociateii Newspapers oj Ceylon. fj<(. r. National Employers' T'nion 60
Motor Vehicles Taxation Ordinance, what could have been recoveredupon a certificate issued in terras of section 4 of that Ordinance wasonly a tax imposed by the Ordinance itself. This contention failed togive effect to the trno nature of the amendment which section 22 of theAct No. 2 .of 1963 introduced. That amendment was intra vires thepowers of the legislature. I did not find it possible in any way to upholdas sound the contention that an amendment of the Heavy Oil MotorVehicles Taxation Ordinance had to be effected by an Act which oxpresslydeclared itself to be an Act to amend that Ordinance. There is nothingto prevent Parliament by one Act validly amending other Acts of Parlia-ment covering a wide range of subjects. Act No. 10 of 1965 is one recentexample of the exorcise of thiH power of Parliament and there have alwaysbeen many such instances. This point was in my opinion quite unsoundand I rejected it.
I have set out above shortly the reasons why at the conclusion of theargument I dismissed thin application in revision.
Abdication dismissed.