1. Challenge to the constitutionality of the Assam Taxation (on Goods Carried by Roads or Inland Waterways) Act, 1954, regarding taxes on tea and jute carriage. (Para 1 , 2 , 63 , 64 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 228
Supreme Court Of India
ATIABARI TEA COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
STATE OF ASSAM
Decided On : September 26, 1960
Taxation that directly and immediately restricts the movement of goods is a restriction on the freedom of trade under Article 301. Such State legislation is void unless it is reasonable, in the public interest, and introduced with the previous sanction of the President under Article 304(b).
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 301, 302, 303, 304(a), 304(b), 265, 245 - Seventh Schedule, List II, Entry 56 - Freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse - Taxation on carriage of goods - Direct restriction on trade - The freedom declared by Article 301 is not absolute but subject to the provisions of Part 13 - Taxation that directly and immediately restricts the free flow or movement of trade falls within the purview of Article 301 (Paras 18, 51).
(B) Legislative competence - A tax on the carriage of goods by road or inland waterways, while within the competence of the State Legislature under Entry 56 of List II, is subject to the limitations of Part 13 - If such a tax operates as a direct restriction on the movement of trade, it must satisfy the requirements of Article 304(b) (Paras 52, 55).
(C) Article 304(b) - For a State Legislature to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade in the public interest, the Bill or amendment must not be introduced or moved without the previous sanction of the President - Absence of such sanction renders the legislation void (Paras 48, 54, 73).
Facts of the case:
A State legislature enacted a law to levy taxes on specific goods carried by road or inland waterways. The tax was realisable from the producer or dealer. The validity of the Act was challenged on the grounds that it violated the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse and lacked the mandatory previous sanction of the President.
Findings of Court:
The Act imposes a direct restriction on the movement of goods, which is an integral part of trade. Because the previous sanction of the President was not obtained prior to the introduction of the Bill, the Act is unconstitutional.
Issues: Whether a tax on the carriage of goods constitutes a direct restriction on the freedom of trade under Article 301 and whether such legislation is void if the previous sanction of the President under Article 304(b) is not obtained.
Ratio Decidendi: Freedom of trade under Article 301 encompasses the free movement of goods. Any tax that directly and immediately restricts this movement is a restriction on trade. Such restrictions imposed by a State are valid only if they are reasonable, in the public interest, and introduced with the previous sanction of the President.
Result: Appeals and petitions allowed; Act declared void.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Act violates Article 301, constitutes an excise duty, conflicts with the Tea Act 1953, or is discriminatory under Article 14. (Para 2 , 6 , 28 , 65 )
3. Taxation that directly and immediately restricts the movement of goods falls within the purview of Article 301 and requires compliance with Part 13. (Para 8 , 12 , 16 , 18 , 32 , 39 , 43 , 50 , 51 , 66 , 67 )
4. A tax on the carriage of goods is a direct restriction on trade under Article 301, requiring Presidential sanction under Article 304(b) for validity. (Para 51 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 73 , 78 , 80 )
5. Appeals and petitions allowed; the impugned Act declared void for lack of previous Presidential sanction under Article 304(b). (Para 24 , 62 , 80 , 82 , 83 )
6. Does Article 301 provide absolute freedom from taxation?
No. While Article 301 guarantees freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse, it is not an absolute freedom from all taxation. However, taxes that directly and immediately restrict the free flow or movement of trade fall within its purview and must satisfy the requirements of Part 13. (Para 18 , 51 , 67 )
7. What is the test to determine if a tax violates Article 301?
The court applied a rational and workable test: whether the impugned restriction operates directly or immediately on trade or its movement. Taxes that create direct and immediate impediments to the movement of goods attract the provisions of Article 301. (Para 51 , 55 )
8. What are the requirements for a State Legislature to impose reasonable restrictions on trade under Article 304(b)?
For a law to be valid under Article 304(b), it must be in the public interest, impose reasonable restrictions, and the Bill or amendment must not be introduced or moved without the previous sanction of the President. (Para 48 , 73 )
9. Is a tax on the carriage of goods considered an excise duty?
No. A tax on the carriage of goods is distinct from an excise duty because the liability arises from the act of transport, not from the manufacture or production of the goods. (Para 20 , 65 )
10. Does Article 301 cover both inter-State and intra-State trade?
Yes. The phrase throughout the territory of India indicates that the freedom guaranteed by Article 301 encompasses both inter-State and intra-State trade, commerce, and intercourse. (Para 43 , 44 , 69 )
Judgment
SINHA, J.
( 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, th
