IMPORTANT POINTS
1. It is not possible to lay down any principles which should govern the approach of the Court in dealing with the question of revisiting its earlier decision. It would ultimately depend upon several relevant considerations.
2. In case of doubt, a smaller Bench can invite attention of Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench larger than the one whose decision is being doubted.

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950-Clause (a) and clause (b) of Article 304 –Matter referred to Constitution Bench -Whether the State enactments relating to levy of entry tax have to be tested with reference to both Article 304(a) and Article 304(b) of the Constitution and whether Article 304(a) is conjunctive with or separate from Article 304(b)?- When the hearing commenced before Constitution Bench, it was found that the assessees were heavily relying upon the tests propounded by a 5-Judge Bench of this Court in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v.The State of Assam and Ors., which tests subject to the clarification, stood reiterated in the subsequent judgment delivered by a larger Bench of this Court in the case of The Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.- States whose Entry Tax Laws had been challenged contended that tests propounded in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. and Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. had failed to strike a balance between “freedom of trade and commerce” under Article 301 of the Constitution and the States’ authority to levy taxes under Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution read with the appropriate Legislative Entries in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India- The states, therefore, sought revisiting of said two decisions in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. and Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. (supra) by a larger Bench-Held that on number of aspects a larger Bench of this Court needs to revisit the interpretation of Part XIII of the Constitution including various tests propounded in the judgments of the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the said two cases, Atiabari Tea Co. and Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. – Direction given that batch of cases be put before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a suitable larger Bench for reconsideration of the judgments of Apex Court in Atiabari Tea Co. and Automobile Transport (Rajasthan). (Para 5 to 7)
       Facts of the Case :
       When some of the cases in the present batch came for hearing before a Division Bench of Apex Court it was found that some of the High Courts before which the State Entry Tax stood challenged had taken the view that clause (a) and clause (b) of Article 304 of the Constitution of India are independent of each other and that if the impugned law stood saved under Article 304(a) then it need not be tested with reference to clause (b) for determining its validity. Accordingly, Division Bench of Apex Court referred to the Constitution Bench 10 questions, the most important of which being - whether the State enactments relating to levy of entry tax have to be tested with reference to both Article 304(a) and Article 304(b) of the Constitution and whether Article 304(a) is conjunctive with or separate from Article 304(b)? Consequently, the matter stood referred to the Constitution Bench of Apex Court.
       Findings of the Court :
       When the hearing commenced before Constitution Bench, it was found that the assesses were heavily relying upon the tests propounded by a 5-Judge Bench of this Court in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v.The State of Assam and Ors., which tests subject to the clarification, stood reiterated in the subsequent judgment delivered by a larger Bench of this Court in the case of The Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. States whose Entry Tax Laws had been challenged contended that tests propounded in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. and Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. had failed to strike a balance between “freedom of trade and commerce” under Article 301 of the Constitution and the States’ authority to levy taxes under Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution read with the appropriate Legislative Entries in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The states, therefore, sought revisiting of said two decisions in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. and Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. (supra) by a larger Bench.It was Held that on number of aspects a larger Bench of this Court needs to revisit the interpretation of Part XIII of the Constitution including various tests propounded in the judgments of the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the said two cases, Atiabari Tea Co. and Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. Direction was given that batch of cases be put before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a suitable larger Bench for reconsideration of the judgments of Apex Court in Atiabari Tea Co. andAutomobile Transport (Rajasthan).

ORDER

1.On 18th December, 2008, when some of the cases in the present batch came for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us, Kapadia, J., was a party, the Division Bench of this Court found that some of the High Courts before which the State Entry Tax stood challenged had taken the view that clause (a) and clause (b) of Article 304 of the Constitution of India are independent of each other and that if the impugned law stood saved under Article 304(a) then it need not be tested with reference to clause (b) for determining its validity. Accordingly, on that date, the Division Bench of this Court referred to the Constitution Bench 10 questions, the most important of which being - whether the State enactments relating to levy of entry tax have to be tested with reference to both Article 304(a) and Article 304(b) of the Constitution and whether Article 304(a) is conjunctive with or separate from Article 304(b)? Consequently, the matter stood referred to the Constitution Bench of this Court.

2.Accordingly, on 16th March, 2010, the entire batch of cases came for hearing before the Constitution Bench in which the lead matter is Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.. When the hearing commenced before the Constitution Bench, we found that the assessees (original petitioners in the High Courts) are heavily relying upon the tests propounded by a 5-Judge Bench of this Court in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. The State of Assam and Ors.,1 (1961) 1 SCR 809, which tests subject to the clarification, stood reiterated in the subsequent judgment delivered by a larger Bench of this Court in the case of The Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.,2 (1963) 1 SCR 491. In fact, it may be stated that the Constitution Bench of this Court delivered the judgment in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) on 26th September, 1960. Soon thereafter, on 4th April, 1961, after hearing arguments in full, a 5-Judge Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that the matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench. In the circumstances, a 7-Judge Bench of this Court decided the matter in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. (supra) on 9th April, 1962 reiterating the tests laid down in Atiabari’s case (supra) subject to one clarification. The question, therefore, which we need to answer, in the first instance, before going into the validity of each of the State Laws impugned before us is - Whether after 49 years, this Court should revisit the tests propounded in the earlier decisions in the case of Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. and Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. (supra)? At this stage, it may be mentioned that the States whose Entry Tax Laws have been challenged have contended before us that the tests propounded in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. and Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. (supra) have failed to strike a balance between the “freedom of trade and commerce” under Article 301 of the Constitution and the States’ authority to levy taxes under Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution read with the appropriate Legislative Entries in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The states, therefore, sought revisiting of the aforestated two decisions in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. and Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. (supra) by a larger Bench.

3.In Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North,3 (1965) 2 SCR 908 at p. 921, a Constitution Bench of this Court enacted circumstances in which a reference to the larger Bench would lie. It was held that in revisiting and revising its earlier decision, this Court should ask itself whether in the interest of the public good or for any other valid and compulsive reasons, it is necessary that the earlier decision should be revised? Whether on the earlier occasion, did some patent aspects of the question remain unnoticed, or was the attention of the Court not drawn to any relevant and material statutory provision, or was any previous decision bearin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 327

2010 (3) Supreme 414SUPREME COURT OF INDIAS.H. Kapadia, Altamas Kabir, B. Sudershan Reddy, P. Sathasivam and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Anr. — AppellantsversusState of Haryana & Ors — RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 3453 of 2002Decided on : 16-04-2010

Cases Referred (5)

2010 (3) Supreme 414
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. Kapadia, Altamas Kabir, B. Sudershan Reddy, P. Sathasivam and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.
Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Haryana & Ors — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3453 of 2002
Decided on : 16-04-2010