Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (1.90 seconds)Article 286 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Province Of Madras, Represented By ... vs Boddu Paidanna And Sons, Represented By ... on 5 September, 1941
It was said that, on the construction we have indicated
above, a "sale in the course of export" would become practi-
cally synonymous with "export", and would reduce clause (b)
to a mere redundancy, because article 246 (1), read with
entry 83 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, vests legisla-
tive power with respect to "duties of customs including
export duties" exclusively in Parliament, and that would be
sufficient to preclude State taxation of such transactions.
We see no force in this suggestion. It might well be argued,
in the absence of a provision like clause (b) prohibiting in
terms the levy of tax on the sale or purchase of goods where
such sales and purchases are effected through the machinery
of export and import, that both the powers of taxation,
though exclusively vested in the Union and the States re-
spectively, could be exercised in respect of the same sale
by export or purchase by import, the sales tax and the
export duty being regarded as essentially of a different
character. A similar argument induced the Federal Court to
hold in Province of Madras v. Boddu Paidanna and Sons(1)
that both central excise duty and provincial sales tax could
be validly imposed on the first sale of groundnut oil and
cake by the manufacturer or producer as "the two taxes are
economically two separate and distinct imposts". Lest
similar reasoning should lead to the imposition of such
cumulative burden on the export-import trade of this country
which is of great importance to the nation's economy, the
Constituent Assembly may well have thought it necessary to
exempt
(1) [1942] F.C.R. 90.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1