1. Export of charcoal — Levy of customs duty — Challenge to validity of demand notice under Public Demands Recovery Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 173
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
19th April, 1962.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.
Firm Ghulam Hussain Haji Yakoob and Sons, Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 300 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Chand Mal Lodha and Brijbans Kishore, Advocates, for appellant; M/s. S. K. Kapur and D. Gupta, Advocates, for Respondent.
Civil Writ Appln. No. 58 of 1957, D/-13-11-1958-Raj.
Advocates:
Brij Bhusan Kishore, C.M.Lodha, D.GUTPA, S.K.KAPOOR
Brij Bhusan Kishore, C.M.Lodha, D.GUTPA, S.K.KAPOOR
Power to alter tariff rates does not permit adding new taxable commodities. Legislative authority of a collective Regency Board cannot be exercised by its President alone. Laws of a successor State do not automatically apply to a merged territory without specific legislative extension.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act - Sections 14 and 15 - Power to alter tariff rates does not include power to add new taxable commodities to the list of goods specified in the Tariff - Charging section provides that duties are levied only on goods mentioned in the Tariff at the rates prescribed therein. (Paras 4, 5)
(B) Legislative Competence - Where governance is entrusted to a Regency Board acting collectively, an order passed by an advisory council and approved by the President of the Board without evidence of the Board's collective decision is invalid - The President cannot exercise legislative power independently of the Board. (Paras 9, 11)
(C) Application of Laws after Merger - Laws of a successor State do not automatically apply to a merged territory unless specifically extended by legislation - An Ordinance passed by the successor State prior to the merger cannot be applied retrospectively to the merged territory without appropriate legislative enactment. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
An entity exported charcoal from a former State. Customs authorities levied export duty based on an order that added charcoal to the taxable list, as it was previously only taxable on import. The order was based on a resolution of a State Council and approved by the President of the Regency Board. The entity challenged the levy as ultra vires. The successor State argued the levy was valid under the Regency Board's authority or a subsequent Ordinance passed by the successor State.
Findings of Court:
The power to alter rates under the Customs Act did not extend to adding new items to the Tariff. The order imposing the duty was not validly passed by the Regency Board as a collective body. Furthermore, the Ordinance of the successor State did not apply to the former State as it was not included in the legislation extending laws to the merged territory.
Issues: Whether the authority could add new items to the customs tariff under the power to alter rates; whether the approval of the President of the Regency Board alone was sufficient to validate a legislative order; and whether the laws of the successor State applied automatically to the merged territory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power to "fix and alter tariff rates" is distinct from the power to expand the list of taxable commodities. Legislative authority vested in a collective Board cannot be exercised by its President independently. Laws of a successor State require specific legislative extension to apply to a newly merged territory.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Validity of customs duty levy — Competence of State Council and Rajmata to impose new taxes versus requirement for legislative enactment. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. Power to alter tariff rates excludes adding new taxable items — Regency Board must act collectively — Laws of Rajasthan not automatically applicable to Sirohi post-merger. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Power to alter rates does not authorize adding taxable items — Regency Board's authority is collective — Post-merger law application requires specific legislation. (Para 5 , 11 , 14 )
5. Appeal allowed — Customs duty levy declared invalid — Demand notice and related orders quashed. (Para 15 )
6. Does the power to alter tariff rates under a customs act include the power to add new taxable commodities to the tariff?
No. The power to fix and alter tariff rates is distinct from the power to add new items to the list of taxable commodities. New commodities can only be added through legislative enactment, not through the administrative power to alter rates. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. Can the President of a Regency Board validly issue legislative or executive orders without the concurrence of the other Board members?
No. Governance entrusted to a Board of Regency requires the Board to act collectively. Approval by the President alone, without evidence of consultation or a collective decision by the Board, is insufficient to exercise legislative authority. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. Do laws existing in a state automatically apply to another state upon its merger into the first?
No. Laws applicable to a state prior to a merger only apply to the merged territory after appropriate legislation is passed to extend those laws to the new territory. (Para 14 )
Judgment
GAJENORAGADKAR, J. : The appellant, Firm Ghulam Hussain Haji Yakoob & Sons, moved the Rajasthan High Court by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition or other writ or appropriate order, declaring that it was not liable to pay the customs duty sought to be levied on it by the Collector of Sirohi by his order of the 9th February, 1956. It appears that one Mohammad Sagir had taken a contract for cutting forest of Harani Amrapura from the Thakur of Nibaj on the 12th July, 1946. The duration of this contract was five years and the purpose of the contract was to enable the contractor to prepare charcoal. This contract was subsequently transferred to the appellant by the said Sagir on the 13th September, 1948. In due course, the contract was extended by the Thakur of Nibaj by two years and an endorsement was made on it to that effect on the 15th April, 1950. Under this contract the appellant prepared charcoal and exported it out of the State of Sirohi. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Excise, Sirohi, took the view that the appellant was liable to pay customs duty @ As. -/8/- per maund on the quantity of charcoal exported by it. The Asstt. Commissioner found that the charcoal thus exported by the appellant was 27,000 mds. Accordingly, the said Asstt. Commissioner made a report to the Commissioner on the 11th February, 1954. The matter was then dealt with by the Dy. Commissioner, Customs and Excise, and he passed an order that the appellant had exported charcoal without payment of duty. This order was made on the 17th December, 1954. According to the finding made by the Dy. Commissioner, the charcoal exported by the appellant after the 30th November, 1948, amounted to 48,650 maunds. On this basis, the appellant was asked to pay Rs. 24,325/- on account of the duty on export of charcoal @ As. -/8/- a maund. The appellant challenged the correctness of this order by preferring an appeal to the Government, but its appeal was rejected on the 24th May, 1956. The appellant came to know about this order on the 5th April, 1957, when it was asked by the Tehsildar to deposit the duty assessed on it along with interest. Since the appellant did not deposit the amount, the Customs authorities had, in the meanwhile, made a requisition to the Collector of Sirohi for recovery of the said amount, and the Collector had issued a notice on the appellant under the Public Demands Recovery Act on the 9th February, 1956. It is the validity of this notice that the appellant challenged by its present writ petition. The appellant s case was that the order purported to have been passed by the State Council of Sirohi by which the customs duty @ As. -/8/ was levied on charcoal was invalid and ultra vires and so, it was not competent to the Customs authorities to levy any duty on the charcoal exported by the appellant and it was not competent to the Collector to issue a demand notice for the recovery of the said duty under the Public Demands Recovery Act.
* The Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 (Raj. V of 1952)
2. On the other hand, the respondent, the State of Rajasthan, disputed the correctness of the appellant s allegation that the duty had been illegally levied. It was urged by the respondent that the said duty had been levied validly by the resolution passed by the State Council which had been approved by Her Highness Shri Rajmata Saheba. Since the said resolution had been duly passed by a competent authority the levy of the duty imposed on the appellant was valid and the Collector was justified in issuing the notice of demand under the Public Demands Recovery Act.
3. The High Court has upheld the plea made by the respondent with the result that the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed with costs. The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court and it is with the said certificate that it has come to this Court by its present appeal.
4.
