Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

and contended that the Control Order, by prohibiting manufacture of Chhana-sweets, including Sandesh, interfered with the freedom of trade conferred by the Article.

6. Articles 301 to 304, in Part XIII of the Constitution, have recently been several times interpreted by the Supreme Court. Before I take up for consideration the first branch of the argument of Mr. Deb, I need remind myself of the scope and effect of Articles 301 to 304, as explained by the Supreme Court. In the case of Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam , the Supreme Court had to consider the vires of Assam Taxation (on Goods carried by Roads or Inland Waterways) Act 1954, an Act passed by the Assam Legislature for the purpose of levy of a tax, inter alia, on tea, carried by road or inland waterways, within or through the State of Assam, in course of trade transit. The Act was challenged as violative of the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse enshrined in Article 301 of the Constitution. Delivering the majority judgment of the Supreme Court, Gajendragadkar, J., (as the Chief Justice then was) observed:

11. In the view taken, His Lordship found that the impugned Act put a direct restriction on freedom of trade, without complying with the provisions of Article 304(b) and was therefore void. I have little apology to offer for quoting long extracts from the judgment in, Atiabari case , (supra) because I am to be guided thereby. In the next decision, Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan , the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with the vires of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1951, which imposed a tax on Motor Vehicles used in any public place or kept for use in Rajasthan. S.K. Das, J., delivering the majority judgment, approved or the view expressed in Atiabari case , (supra) but subject to the following clarification:

"We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that neither the widest interpretation nor the narrow interpretations canvassed before us are acceptable. The interpretation which was accepted by the Majority in the Atiabari Tea Co. case , is correct, but subject to this clarification. Regulatory measures or measures imposing compensatory taxes for the use of trading facilities do not come within the purview of the restrictions contemplated by Article 301 and such measures need not comply with the requirements of the proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution."

otherwise His Lordship reiterated the statement of law in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd case (supra) as explained by Automobile Transport Ltd case (supra).

13. Both in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd case (supra) and Automobile Transport Rajasthan Ltd. case (supra), the Supreme Court emphasised upon the view that Article 301 protected free movement or transport of goods from one part of the country to another, be that at the boundaries of the States or at any other point inside the States themselves. The Supreme Court did not go to the extent of holding that a restriction not touching upon the freedom of movement but otherwise affecting or restricting trade, commerce or intercourse may also offend against the freedom assured by Article 301. I may, however, indicate that restriction not ostensibly laid upon movement of goods, but in substance having that effect, may also offend against Article 301. Beyond that it is not necessary for me to express any opinion on this point in this Rule.