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

2015 (10) TMI 1729

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er rich or poor it is only the State which can impose reasonable restrictions within the ambit of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India, without which, on the basis of a circular, the respondent cannot interfere with the petitioner's right to carry on business. - Decision in the case of syndicate bottles [2015 (10) TMI 298 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] followed - Decided in favour of petitioner. - W. P. No. 17019 of 2015, M. P. No. 1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2015 - R. Mahadevan, J. For the Petitioner : Mr K C S K Balaji For the Respondent : Mr M S Ramesh, AGP ORDER This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Dhanalakshmi Bottles Supplies, represented by its Proprietrix Mrs.Vilvathri Sampath under Article 226 of the Cons .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... also released on bail by this Court. On this background, it was contended that the unfounded apprehension of the second respondent that the petitioner company would sell the empty beer bottles only to unauthorized distilleries at Madhya Pradesh is wholly untenable and unconstitutional since Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees right to carry on business freely in this Country and Article 301 also guarantees Inter State Trade and Commerce. Since no instance of such misuse have been detected by the respondent, they cannot wrongly presume that the purchasers will misuse of the empty bottles. That apart so long as the petitioner is entitled to carry on lawfull business as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) r/w 301 of the Con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... du with an intention to gain wrongfully and also to cause wrongfull loss to the State of Tamil Nadu particularly to the Department of Tamil Nadu Prohibition and Excise. On this basis, the learned additional Government Pleader further contended that in the preliminary investigation conducted by Dr.T.Kannan, Inspector of Police, PEW, Krishnagiri at Indore (Madhya Pradesh) it was noticed that the beer bottles belonging to Tamil Nadu Breweries with their company Name and Trade mark embedded as For Sale in Tamil Nadu only are used for refilling purposes and again circulated in Madhya Pradesh State. Since the preliminary investigation conducted by Dr.T.Kannan, Inspector of Police, PEW, Krishnagiri at Indore (Madhya Pradesh) had disclosed a start .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion trade or business subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by this State under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. Thus, when the Constitution has guaranteed every citizen right to carry on any business whether rich or poor it is only the State which can impose reasonable restrictions within the ambit of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India, without which, on the basis of a circular, the respondent cannot interfere with the petitioner's right to carry on business. 5. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.9368 of 2015 by order dated 27.04.2015 has allowed the said writ petition and the relevant portions of the order are extracted below:- 5. This Court fully agrees with the said submission made by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce that the empty beer bottles belonging to Tamil Nadu Breweries are being misused in Madhya Pradesh State. When the respondents have not produced any document showing the registration of complaint against any person belonging to the petitioner's company showing that the empty beer bottles purchased from Tamil Nadu have been illegally misused, in the absence of such document produced before this Court, the action of the respondent cannot be espoused. Besides, a mere prevention of movement of empty beer bottles by way of an executive action without legislative authority is invalid, since such an action infringes the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on business, for it is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution .....

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