Wanchoo, C.J.—Three writ applications were filed by the Automobile Transport (Raj.) Ltd., (No. 400), The Rajasthan Roadways Ltd., (401), and Framji C. Framji and others (402), and in each of them the validity of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (No. XI) of 1951 was challenged. The three cases came before a Division Bench of this Court which has referred the following question to a Full Bench—

Whether secs. 4 and 11 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 do not infringe the rights of freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse guaranteed under Art. 301 of the Constitution ?

2. The facts of the case may be briefly narrated in order to understand the point raised by the three applicants—

3. The applicants carry on the business of plying stage carriages, and all three of them have their head offices in what was the former State of Ajmer. All three of them ply vehicles on Nasirabad—Deoli Road, while the Automobile Transport (Raj.) Ltd., also ply motor vehicles between Ajmer and Kishangarh for which they held permits from the former State of Ajmer. The road from Nasirabad to Deoli was mainly in the former State of Ajmer, but for some distance it passed through the State of Rajasthan. Similarly, the road from Ajmer to Kishangarh was partly in the former State of Ajmer, and partly in the State of Rajasthan. The Regional Transport Officer, Jaipur, who is also the Motor Vehicles Taxation Officer, demanded from the applicants tax under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (No. XI) of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) for the period from 1st of April, 1951 to 31st March, 1954. The applicants contended that they were not liable to pay this tax for various reasons, and filed these writ applications challenging inter alia, the validity of the Act.

4. The matter came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court, and the Bench has referred the question set out above for answer by a Full Bench, and that is how the matter has come before us.

5. The contention of the applicant in this connection is this. They say that Article 301 of the Constitution provides that subject to the other provisions of this part, trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free. Therefore, it is urged that no tax like the one provided in the Act can be levied because such a tax militates against the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India, unless the previous sanction of the President is obtained to the bill for the levying of the tax (assuming that the tax imposes reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse) in view of the proviso to Art. 304. It is further urged that even if previous sanction of the President was not taken as envisaged in that proviso, the defect could have been remedied if subsequent assent had been obtained under Art. 255. But as neither the previous sanction of the bill relating to this taxation was taken, nor the Act received the assent of the President after it was passed, the Act is invalid as it restricts freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed under Art. 301.

6. The State, on the other hand, contends that the Act is a valid piece of legislation, and does not offend against Art. 301. It is further contended that the Act was passed under the powers of the State Legislature under Art. 245 of the Constitution, and the tax levied is according to law, and therefore the applicants cannot contend, in view of Art. 265, that they are not liable to pay it. It is also urged that no law imposing a tax can be invalid on the ground that it offends Art. 301.

7. The main contention on behalf of the applicants is based on certain decisions of the Privy Council, and the High Court of Australia in relation to sce. 92 of the Australian Constitution, which provides freedom of inter-State trade. We must, however, point out that there are differences between the Australian Constitution and the Indian Constitution and therefore, the principl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document