Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

33. Next, we come to the question whether the impugned provision is violative of Article 286(3) of the Constitution, which places a restriction on the powers of the State Legislature to legislate in connection with goods of special importance, which have been so declared under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and which are used in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. Earlier we have already discussed the other aspect of this question, namely, whether the impugned provision violates any of the provisions of the Central enactments. With regard to the particular provision of Article 286(3) of the Constitution we may observe that the article lays down the following restrictions :
286. (3) Any law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes, or authorises the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament by law to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce, be subject to such restrictions and conditions in regard to the system of levy, rates and other incidents of the tax as Parliament may by law specify.
34. If the State Legislature had done anything contrary to the Central enactments in the matter of goods of special importance, namely, tobacco with all its products, the impugned provision could have been challenged on the ground of violation of Article 286(3) of the Constitution. But, what the State Legislature has done is to tax the tendu leaves which might be used as one of the constituents for the manufacture of bidis. No such prohibition can be read into the provision of Article 286(3) of the Constitution. The article prohibits the State Legislature from imposing or authorising the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament by law to be of special importance. In conformity with the said provision, the State Legislature has exempted tobacco and all its products from the operation of sales tax altogether. Imposition of sales tax on tendu pattas can, by no stretch of imagination, be construed to be in violation of the restriction placed by Article 286(3) of the Constitution of India.
35. In Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Punjab, and Anr. A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 957 an argument was advanced that the provisions of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, as amended by Acts Nos. 13 of 1959 and 18 of 1960, read with Rule 26 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules, 1949, granting exemption from sales tax on fulfilment of certain conditions, were violative of Article 286(3) of the Constitution. Their Lordships rejected that contention and observed that the effect of Article 286(3) had been brought out by the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act, which had been enacted out of an abundant caution and even without it, the result would be the same.
36. In Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Punjab, the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, were challenged on similar grounds and. specially on the ground that they were violative of Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as also on the ground that they were discriminatory and as such, violated the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. Lastly, they were challenged on the ground of competency of the State Legislature to enact laws within the framework of Article 254 and Article 286 of the Constitution of India. Vaidialingam, J., delivering the majority judgment, negatived the argument that the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, were violative of Article 286(3) of the Constitution. But, it was found that the impugned provision imposed sales tax on some of the declared goods. In that view, the assessment for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62 on the basis of the original notification of the year 1958, could not be valid. For that reason, their Lordships reversed the judgment of the High Court. So far as the present case is concerned, we have already pointed out earlier that the impugned provision in the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, namely Section 8, as amended by the M. P. General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1971, cannot be said to be contravening either Section 14 or even Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. What Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act prohibits is as follows :