SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(SC) 227

Supreme Court Of India
ATIABARI TEA COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
STATE OF ASSAM
Decided On : September 26, 1960

Headnote:

Whether the impugned Act infringes the provisions of Part 13 of the Constitution, with particular reference to Art. 301. Whether the impugned Act is within the legislative competence of the Assam Legislature. Whether the impugned Act is extra-territorial in its operation. Whether the impugned Act is discriminatory in character and thus infringes Art. 14 of the Constitution.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants moved the High Court of Judicature in Assam under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Act. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 6/06/1955, dismissed the writ petitions. Thereupon, the appellants obtained the certificates that the cases involved substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. The petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution were moved in this Court for the same purpose of challenging the vires of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The impugned Act does not infringe the provisions of Part 13 of the Constitution, with particular reference to Art. 301. The impugned Act is within the legislative competence of the Assam Legislature. The impugned Act is not extra-territorial in its operation. The impugned Act is not discriminatory in character and thus does not infringe Art. 14 of the Constitution.

Issues: Whether the impugned Act infringes the provisions of Part 13 of the Constitution, with particular reference to Art. 301. Whether the impugned Act is within the legislative competence of the Assam Legislature. Whether the impugned Act is extra-territorial in its operation. Whether the impugned Act is discriminatory in character and thus infringes Art. 14 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The freedom of trade guaranteed by Art. 301 is freedom from all restrictions except those which are provided by the other Articles in Part 13. The impugned Act is a taxing statute simpliciter without the least suggestion even of any attempt at discrimination against dealers and producers outside the State of Assam or of preference in favour of those inside the State. On the face of it, therefore, the Act does not suffer from any of the vices against which Part 13 of the Constitution was intended. It has not been suggested that the Act imposes a heavy burden on the dealer or the producer as the case may be. On the terms of the Statute, it cannot be said that it is intended to put obstacles or impediments in the way of free flow of traffic in respect of jute and tea. On the face of it, it would not be in the interest of the State of Assam to put any such impediments because Assam is a large producer of those commodities and the market for those commodities is mainly in Calcutta. In those circumstances, it is difficult, if not impossible, to come to the conclusion that the Act comes within the purview of Art. 301 of the Constitution. If that is so, no further consideration arising out of the other provisions of Part 13 of the Constitution calls for any decision.

Final Decision: The appeals and the petitions, in my opinion, should be dismissed with costs.

Judgment

SINHA

( 1 ) THESE appeals on certificates granted under Art. 132 of the Constitution by the High Court of Judicature in Assam and writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution impgun the constitutionality of the Assam Taxation (on Goods Carried by Roads or Inland Waterways) Act, (Assam Act 13 of 1954) which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act. The appellants moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Act. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 6/06/1955, dismissed the writ petitions. Thereupon, the appellants obtained the certificates that the cases involved substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. The petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution were moved in this Court for the same purpose of challenging the vires of the Act. The appellants and the petitioners will, in the course of this judgment, be referred to, for the sake of convenience, as the appellants. The State of Assam, the Commissioner of Taxes, appointed under S. 6 of the Act, and the Superintendent of Taxes are the respondents to the appeals and the writ petitions.

( 2 ) IT appears that the appellants are growers of tea in West Bengal or in Assam and carry their tea to the market in Calcutta from where the tea is sold for consumption in the country or is exported for sale out of the country. The sale of tea inside Assam bears a very small proportion to the tea produced and manufactured by the appellants. Thus the bulk of tea produced and manufactured is carried out of Assam, either for internal consumption in India or for export abroad. Besides the tea carried by rail, a large quantity of tea is carried by road or by inland waterways from Assam to Bengal and in some of these cases, from one part of West Bengal to another part of the same State through inland waterways, only a few miles of which pass through the territory of the State of Assam. The Assam Legislature passed the act which received the assent of the Governor of Assam on 9/04/1954, the came into force on and from 1/06/1954. The purpose of the Act is to levy taxes on certain goods carried by road or inland water-ways in the State of Assam. On 30/06/1954, the second respondent, the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sub-s. (3) of S. 7 of the Act, published a notification in the Assam Government Gazette bearing date 21/06/1954, by which he notified for general information that the return under the aforesaid Act and the rules made thereunder for the period commencing 1/06/1954 , should be furnished by 30/10/1954. The said notification also demanded the furnishing of quarterly returns before 30/01/1955 and 30/04/1955, for the quarters ending 31/12/1954 and 31/03/1955, respectively. The appellants in some of the cases, in pursuance of demand notices, submitted returns to the third respondent, the Superintendent of Taxes, in the prescribed form in respect of tea despatched and carried up to 30/09/1954, under protest. They also paid the tax demanded under protest. The appellants moved the High Court of Judicature in Assam under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the said Act and praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to be provisions of the Act and the notification issued under the Act and/or a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ restraining them from taking steps under the provisions of the Act. The appellants challenged the validity of the Act mainly on the grounds that (1) the Act, rules and the notifications under the Act were ultra vires the Constitution, because the Act was repugnant to the provisions of Art. 301 of the Constitution as the tax on carriage of tea through the State of Assam had the effect of interfering with the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse; (2) that tea being a controlled industry under the provisions of the Tea Act, 29 of 1953, the Un
























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top