LexA.B. ABDULKADIR AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER (AND CONNECTED APPEALS)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
741
We should however like to make it clear that
we express no opinion on the controversy bet;ween
the appellants and the interveners who are left to
such remedies as may be avriilable to them under
the law.
--
A.B. ABDULKADIR AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER
(AND CONNECTED APPEALS)
(B. P; SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N.
WANOHoo, M. HU>AYATULLAH ·and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Central Exci.e-Control oj tobacco-System of auction8-
Licence for storage-Repeal qf state law-Cochin and Travancore
enactments, if lau• c.orrespond1"ng to Central E.xcises Act-'' Excise
duty", meaning of-Cochin Tobacco Act, 1084 (Cochin 7 of
1084 M. E.)-1'ravancore Tobacco Regulation, 1087 (Travancore
1of1087 M.E.) -Finance Act, 1950 (25 of 1950), 88. 11(1),
13 (2).
In 1909
the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Cochin
enacted the Cochin Tobacco Act of 1084 (M.E.) with the
object of controHing the cultivation, production, manufacture,
storage and sale of tobacco.
Rules were framed under the
Act for regulating the cultivation, possession, transportation
and sale of tobacco and a system of licensing was introduced
for that purpose.
Licences for storage \Vere to be annual and
to be issued on payment of licence fee. The authorities
administering the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed
thereunder were the Commissioner of Excise and his subordi"
natcs, The system in force
for
the collection of tobacco
revenue was to auction what were called A class and B class
shops.
A law similar to that prevailing in Cochin was promul-
gated in 1911 by the Ruler ofTravancore as the Travancore
Tobacco Regulation of 1087 (M.E.). The two States merged
themselves in 1919 as the State ofTravancore Co<"Mn but the
two Acts continued to remain in force in the respective
territories. On April I, 1950, after the Constitution of India
pad come into force and Travancore Cochin had become a
19111
B .. antB.,.
••
U•U..of l•'i•
--
1962
A. B. Al>iulkoiir
y,
n. ,..,. oJ lf".i.
742
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
Part B State thereunder bys. 11 of the Finance Act, 1950, the
0:ntral,Excises and Salt.Act, 19#, was extended to that State.
Section 13(2) of the Finance Act, 1950, provided that "if
immediately before the !st day of April, !9j0, there is in force
in any State other than Jammu and Kashmir a law correspond-
ing {o, but other than, 8'n Act referred to in subs. (I) or (2) of
r. 11, such Jaw is repealed with effect from the said date., ..
. . " After thi• provision in the Finance Act,
1950, the Rules
which we1c in force on April I, 1950, were changed in the
Cochin area by a notification dated August 3, l9j0, and the
system of auction sales of A Class and B Cla!S shops was done
away with and instearl
graded licence fees were introduced
for various classes of licensees. Similar change was made for
the Travancore area by notification dated January 25, 1951.
The appellants who were
carrying on busines.s in tobacco
within the territoriCJ of Travancore and Cochin challenged the
legality of the notifications of August 3, 1950, and January
25, 1951, on the ground
that the Cochin Tobacco Act and
the Travancore
Tobacco Regulation
under which the
notifications were purported to be issued, were law correspond-
ing to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and so
they stood repealed from April I, 1950, by
virtue of the
operation of ss. 11
and 13(2) of the Finance Act.
It was
contended for the State of Kcrala that the main feature of the
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, was
the impo>ition of a
duty of excise on
goods produced or manufactured in India
and that there was
no provision for charging duty in the
Cochin Act or the similar Travancore Act and therefore all
these provisions in the Rules for the control of tobacco from
the time of cultivation to the time of the final stage of sale to
the consumer, evm though they were similar to the Rules
und<r the Central Act, would not make the Cochin Act or
the similar Travancore Act a law corresponding to the Central
Act.
Held, that the rults framed under the Cochin Tobacco
Act of 1084(M.E.) and the Travancore Tobacco Regulation of
1087 (M.E.) requiring licences to be taken out for storage and
sale of tobacco and for payment of licence fee in respect
th<reof were law corresponding to the provisions of the
Central Excises and· Salt Act, 1944, and, hence, were
superseded on April I, 1950, by virExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.