Judgment :- 1. I do not think that there has been any usurpation of judicial power by the legislature in passing the Kerala Sales-tax (Levy and Validation) Amendment Act, 1969, (Act 18 of 1969). Nor do I think that the recovery proceedings sought to be pursued against the petitioner were barred or foreclosed by reason of the prior decision of this Court in O. P. No. 1093 of 1967 evidenced by Ext. P 2. 2. For the years 1960 61, & 1961-62 the petitioner was assessed to sales-tax in respect of the turnover from coconut and copra. The order was quashed by Ext. P-2 judgment on the ground that it fell outside the period covered by the Kerala Sales-tax (Levy and Validation) Act 1965 (Act 4/65) as explained in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ananthanarayana Iyer v. State of Kerala (1967 K. L. T. 1411. In the said decision, the Full Bench observed: "8, The tenability or otherwise of both the submissions depends on the true scope and ambit of the validation effected by S.4. Is the validation effected of all levies, assessments or collections during the period from 141958 to 3131963 on the purchase of copra or cashewnut kernel during the said period irrespective of the provisions of S.3? Or is the validation effected only of the levies, assessments or collections during the period from 141958 to 3131963 on the purchase of copra or cashew-nut kernel during the said period which are in conformity with the liability created by S.3 with effect from 141958? 9. According to the learned Advocate General the latter is the case; and no question of any violation of Art.14 or any inroad into the judicial power arises for consideration. We are inclined to agree. 9. According to the learned Advocate General the latter is the case; and no question of any violation of Art.14 or any inroad into the judicial power arises for consideration. We are inclined to agree. Apparently what S.3 does is to provide a legal foundation for assessments on the purchase of copra or cashewnut kernel during the period from 1-4-1958 to 3131963; and what S.4 does is to validate all taxes already levied, assessed or collected or purported to have been levied, assessed or collected under the General Sales-tax Act, 1125, during the period from 1-4-1958 to 31-3-1963 in respect of the purchase of copra or cashewnut kernel during the said period to the extent, and only to the extent, of the legal foundation provided by S.3 with effect from 1-4-1958." The assessment order against thy petitioner for 1950-61 and 1961-62 was subsequent to 31-3-1963. I am informed that the order was dated 28-2-1963. Tresumably, in the light of the Full Bench decision, the legislature enacted the Kerala Sales-tax (Levy and Validation) Amendment Act 1969 (Act 18/1969). S.2 of the Act is as follows: "2. I am informed that the order was dated 28-2-1963. Tresumably, in the light of the Full Bench decision, the legislature enacted the Kerala Sales-tax (Levy and Validation) Amendment Act 1969 (Act 18/1969). S.2 of the Act is as follows: "2. Amendment of S.4-In S.4, of the Kerala Sales-tax (Levy and Validation) Act 1965 (4 of 1965) for sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, substituted, namely: (i) Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal, or other authority, all taxes levied, assessed or collected or purported to have been levied, assessed or collected under the General Sales-tax Act during the period commencing, on and from the 1st day of April 1958 and ending with the 26th day of September 1965, on the purchase of copra or cashewnut kernel shall be deemed to have been validly levied, assessed or collected in accordance with law; and accordingly (i) no suit or other proceeding shall be maintained or continued in any court, tribunal or other authority for the refund of any such tax paid under the General Sales-tax Act; (ii) no court shall enforce a decree or order directing the refund of such tax paid under the General Sales-tax Act; (iii) any such tax assessed under the General Sales-tax Act before the 27th day of September 1965, but not collected, may be recovered in the manner provided under that Act and the Rules made thereunder; (iv) any such tax not assessed under the General Sales-tax Act before the 27th day of September 1965, may be assessed within five years of the date of publication of this Act and recovered in the manner provided under the General Sales-tax Act and the Rules made thereunder." After the above Act, Ext. P-3 memo was issued to the petitioner for paying up the balance of Rs. 5069.48 due from him under the assessment order for the years 1960-61, and 1961-62 which had been quashed by Ext. P-2 judgment. The petitioner's complaint is that in view of Ext. P-2 judgment. Ext. P-3 demand is unenforceable and that the attempt of the legislature to circumvent the decision of this Court evidenced by Ext. P-2 really amounts to usurpation of judicial power. P-2 judgment. The petitioner's complaint is that in view of Ext. P-2 judgment. Ext. P-3 demand is unenforceable and that the attempt of the legislature to circumvent the decision of this Court evidenced by Ext. P-2 really amounts to usurpation of judicial power. I am afraid the position disclosed does not warrant this submission made by the petitioner's Counsel After considering the Kerala Act 4 of 1965, the Full Bench decision in 1967 KLT.141 pointed out that assessments made upto 31-3-1963 were the subject-matter of validation under the provisions of the Act. The assessment order against the petitioner for 1960-61 and 1961-62, was passed beyond this time-limit and therefore would not fall within the purview of the validation effected by the 1965 Act, and was therefore rightly quashed by the Full Bench judgment. But Act 18/1969 has taken the requisite power and made valid, assessments made upto 26th September 1965 and this validation has been effected notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the court. No question of the legislature exercising judicial power seems to arise; because, all that the legislature has done is to take advantage of the lacuna pointed out by the Full Bench in its interpretation of the Validation Act 1965, and to provide for contingencies left unprovided for by that Act. On the facts disclosed, the position is fundamentally different from the decision in Janapada Sabha Chhindwara & Another v. The Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd. & Others (1970 (1) SCWR. 820). There, a notification and certain proceedings taken in pursuance of the notification had been declared illegal by the decision of the Supreme Court. Without curing the defect in the notification pointed out by the Supreme Court by effecting the necessary amendment to the statutory provisions or otherwise, the legislature attempted to over-rule or set aside the decision of the Supreme Court and to declare that despite the decision to the contrary of any court, the notification shall be valid. This was held to be a usurpation of judicial power. Such is not the position here. The principle has been correctly stated in The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Another v. The New Shrocl Spg. & Co. Ltd. (1970-(1) S.C.W.R. 775). Neither the principle nor the facts of that case is helpful to the petitioner. Having regard to the provisions of Act 18 of 1969, despite Ext. P-2 judgment, Ext. The principle has been correctly stated in The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Another v. The New Shrocl Spg. & Co. Ltd. (1970-(1) S.C.W.R. 775). Neither the principle nor the facts of that case is helpful to the petitioner. Having regard to the provisions of Act 18 of 1969, despite Ext. P-2 judgment, Ext. P-3 demand was proper and justified. I dismiss this writ petition, but make no order as to costs.