TMI Blog1968 (8) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Constitution of India read with Article 264 before the amendments made by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, to the erstwhile State of Vindhya Pradesh during the relevant assessment period for the purpose of imposition of sales tax. The respondent-firm manufactures and deals in bidis having head office at Maihar which was a part of the erstwhile United States of Vindhya Pradesh. The Rajpramukh promulgated the Vindhya Pradesh Sales Tax Ordinance No. II of 1949 for the levy of a tax on sales of goods in Vindhya Pradesh. After Vindhya Pradesh had been included in the list of Part C States in the Schedule in the Constitution the aforesaid Ordinance was applied to the whole of Vindhya Pradesh with effect from April 1, 1950, by a notification No. 2 dated March 28, 1950. The Parliament passed the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950. Section 2 of that Act authorised the Central Government to extend any enactment to Part C States, which was in force in Part A States by a notification in the official Gazette with power to repeal and amend any corresponding law. In exercise of that power, the Central Government by a notification dated December 29, 1950, extended to the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f goods from the head office to its branches and could not be assessed to sales tax in view of the provisions of Article 286 of the Constitution. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax of Rewa rejected the first claim of the assessee. It is unnecessary to give details of the decisions by the various departmental authorities, but the main controversy before them, as before the Sales Tax Tribunal which was the Board of Revenue, centred on the applicability of Article 286 of the Constitution to the former State of Vindhya Pradesh. It was held by the Tribunal that Article 286 was applicable. In the other appeal, i.e., C.A. 628 of 1966, also the same question arose. Certain questions of law were framed in both the cases and referred to the High Court by the Tribunal. These questions need not be mentioned because in the present appeals it is common ground that the decision of the appeals would hinge on the point whether Article 286 applied to Part C States. It may be mentioned that the High Court had agreed with the Tribunal that the said article was applicable. If that view is affirmed it is not disputed that both the appeals will have to be dismissed. Article 264 of the Constitution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent in force in Part A to the States in Part C "with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit". The validity of the provisions of that Act came up before this Court in Re. the Delhi Laws Act [1951] S.C.R. 747. We need not, in this case, state the views which were expressed in that special reference. Parliament, however, after the opinions expressed by this Court passed the Government of Part C States Act, 1951, in exercise of its powers under Article 240(1). By this Act Parliament made provision for the Legislature, Council of Ministers or Advisers for Part C States. This Act also contained provisions relating to Consolidated Fund for a State which was included in Part C of the First Schedule. Turning to Chapter XII of the Constitution before the amendments of 1956 it has already been noticed that Article 264 which relates to interpretation with reference to the provisions contained in this Part provides that unless the context otherwise required State would not include a State specified in Part C of the First Schedule. In some of the articles, however, in spite of the aforesaid definition of a State given in Article 264 for the purposes of Part XII Part C States were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly (d) that 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 High Court was fully justified in taking the view that if the framers of the Constitution thought it necessary to put restrictions on the legislative powers of the State for preventing impediment and discouragement to the free flow of trade within India regarded as one economic unit and for preventing commodities essential for the life of the community throughout India from being subjected to sales tax then there could be no ground whatsoever to differentiate Part C States from Part A or Part B State in the matter of restrictions put by Article 286 on the legislative power of the State. It must be remembered that it was contemplated and provided by the Constitution that Part C States could have their own Legislatures and even an Act was passed, as previously mentioned, in which detailed provisions were made regarding these matters. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
