Sardar Soma Singh & Ors Vs. The
State of Pepsu and Union Of India [1954] INSC 21 (11 March 1954)
DAS, SUDHI RANJAN MAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ)
MUKHERJEA, B.K.
BOSE, VIVIAN HASAN, GHULAM
CITATION: 1954 AIR 311 1954 SCR 955
CITATOR INFO :
R 1962 SC 191 (16) R 1968 SC 331 (14)
ACT:
Constitution of India, art. 286 (3)-The
Patiala and East Punjab States Union General Sales Tax Ordinance, 2006 (XXX III
of 2006)-Whether ultra vires the Constitution.
HEADNOTE:
Held, that the Patiala and East 'Punjab
States Union General Sales Tax Ordinance, 2006 (No. XXXIII of 2006) promulgated
on 6th November, 1949, is not ultra vires art. 286 (3) of the Constitution.
Clause (3) of art. 286 contemplates a
post-Constitution law, for it must be a law made by a "Legislature of a
State" which must refer to the Legislature of a State created by the
Constitution.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition No. 325 of
1953.
Petition to the Supreme Court, under
article,32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of fundamental rights.
S. P. Sinha (Bakshi Man Singh, with him) for
the petitioners.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India
and J. N. Kaushal (P. G. Gokhale, with them) for respondent No. 1.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India
(Porus A. Mehta and P. G Gokhale, with him) for respondent No. 2.
956 1954. March 11. 'the Judgment of the
Court was delivered by DAS J.-The short point raised on this petition filed in
this court under article 32 of the Constitution is whether the Patiala and East
Punjab States Union General Sales Tax Ordinance, 2006 (No. XXXIII of 2006)
which was promulgated on the 6th November, 1949, has become void since the date
of the commencement of the Constitution.
Article 286(3) of the Constitution of India
runs as follows :- " 286. (3) No law made by the Legislature of a State
imposing, or authorising the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of
any such goods as have been declared by Parliament by law to be essential for
the life of the community shall have effect unless it has been reserved for the
consideration of the President and has received his assent." The Essential
Goods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax on Sale or Purchase) Act, 1952
(Central Act No. LII of 1952) declared certain commodities as essential for the
life of the community. In the schedule appended to the Act item 8 relates to
"all cloth, woven on handlooms, coarse and medium cotton cloth made in
mills or woven on power looms." Section 3 of the same Act provides as
follows:- "3. Regulation of tax on 'sale or purchase of essential goods:
No law made after the commencement of this Act by the Legislature of a State
imposing, or authorising the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of
any goods declared by this Act to be essential for the life' of the community
shall have effect unless it has been reserved for the consideration of the
President and has received his assent." The petitioners are dealers in
coarse cloth and medium cloth and their contention is that these commodities
having been declared as essential, for the life of the community they are not
liable to pay sales tax on them. In the petition an allegation has been' made
that section 3 of Act LII of 1952 is in direct contravention of article 286(3)
of the Constitution. There 957 does not appear to be any substance in this
contention.
Section 3 is in line with article 286(3) and
there is no inconsistency between that section and the relevant provision of
the Constitution. The petitioners are sought to be taxed under the Ordinance
XXXIII of 2006, which, as an existing law, has been continued by article 372.
The question is whether that Ordinance contravenes the provisions of article
286(3) or has since been altered, repealed or amended by any competent
legislative authority..
It is quite clear that section 3 of Act LII
of 1952 does not affect the Ordinance', for the Ordinance was not made after
the commencement of that Act. The only question, therefore, is whether the
Ordinance runs counter to clause (8) of article 286 of the Constitution. A
perusal of that clause will at once indicate that clause contemplates a post-
Constitution law, for it must be a law made by a "I Legislature of a State
" which must refer to the Legislature of a State created by the
Constitution. Further, and what is more important, it contemplates a law which
can be but has not been reserved for the consideration of the President and has
not received his assent. This provision clearly points to post-Constitution
law, for there can be no question of an existing law continued by article 372
being reserved for the consideration of the President for receiving his assent.
As we are concerned in this application with a pre-Constitution law, it is not
necessary for us to express any opinion as to the validity or otherwise of a
law made after the commencement of the Constitution but before the coming into
operation of Act LII of 1952.
The result, therefore, is that there is no
substance in this petition and we dismiss it with costs.
Petition dimissed.
Agent for the petitioners: Sardar Singh.
Agent for respondent No. 1: R. H. Dhebar.
Back
