Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1961 (4) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is not even plausible. Assuming for the purpose of this case that the right to carry on trade is itself property, it is obvious that there is no question here of the acquisition of that right. It is clear however that though it was open to these petitioners to apply for licences under the Export Promotion Scheme they made no application for licence thereunder. There is no scope therefore for the argument that they have been discriminated against. Appeal dismissed. - 65 of 1959 - - - Dated:- 10-4-1961 - P.B. Gajendragadkar, A.K. Sarkar, K.N. Wanchoo, K.C. Das Gupta and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri B.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the Petitioners. S/Shri H.N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, R. Ganapath .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ort was permitted only under the Export Promotion Scheme. It appears that in view of this policy statement no application was made at all by the second or third applicants or other merchants for the import of glass chatons, in 1957 or thereafter and no licence was issued to them. Licences were however issued in favour of the State Trading Corporation, for the import of glass chatons of the value of five lakhs of Rupees, for the period April-September, 1958, and again, for the import of these goods of the value of Rs. 1,25,000/- for the period October, 1958 to March, 1959. The present application was made on April 27, 1959. The prayer is that respondents 1 and 2 - i.e., the Union of India and the Chief Controller, Imports, should be directed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ication for licences. Para 6 lays down a number of grounds on which the Central Government or the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports may refuse to grant a licence or direct any other licensing authority not to grant a licence. The ground mentioned in the clause (h) is if the licensing authority decide to canalise imports and the distribution thereof through special or specialised agencies or channels . Learned Counsel has argued that this provision in clause (h) of para 6 is void being in contravention of Article 19(1)(f) and (g), and Article 31 of the Constitution. He also urged that to the extent Section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, permits the Central Government to make an order as in para 6(h) Section 3 itself i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion of imports is in the interests of the general public the refusal of imports licences to applicants outside the agencies or channels decided upon must necessarily by held also in the interests of the general public. The real question therefore is : Is the canalization through special or specialized agencies or channels in the interests of the general public. 6. A policy as regards imports forms an integral part of the general economic policy of a country which is to have due regard not only to its impact on the internal or international trade of the country but also on monetary policy, the development of agriculture and industries and even on the political policies of the country involving questions of friendship, neutrality or hostili .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... implementing the decision of canalisation may well be challenged on the ground that it infringes Article 14 of the Constitution or some other fundamental rights. No such question has however been raised in the present case. The attack on the validity of para 6(h) of the Imports Control Order, 1955, therefore, fails. The contention that Section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, is bad to the extent that it permits the Government to make an order as in para 6(h) of the Imports Control Order, 1955, consequently also fails. 7. The attack on this provision in para 6(h) of the order that it contravenes Article 31 is not even plausible. Assuming for the purpose of this case that the right to carry on trade is itself property, it i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates