AMBA LAL versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1961] 1 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 03-10-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

" 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
933 
has to declare only an intention and th&t if ultim&te-
'960 
ly the actual despatch is made by some person who is B. K. Wadeyar 
not a registered dealer, it cannot strictly be said that 
v. 
the declaration has not been carried out. 
It,. might M/s. Daulatra'ln 
very well be that if at the time a decl11.ration of inten-
Rameshwarl~l 
tion is made in the certificate the purchasing dealer 
had the intention as stated and ultimately he sells to 
Das Gupta f. 
a person who is not a registered dealer for despatch of 
the goods ou1'side the State of Bombay, the purchas-
ing dealer may not be liable for having made a "false 
declaration". Even though he has not made a false 
declaration of his intention, the fact remains that the 
intention declared has not been carried out. 
The 
scheme of the Legislature clearly is that where the 
intention as declared has not been carried out pur-
chase tax should be levied. To hold otherwise 
would be to make the declaration of the intention 
useless. 
Our conclusion therefore is that the courts below 
have rightly interpreted the words "a person" in 
s. lO(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act as a" registered 
dealer" and that the purchasing dealers have rightly 
been as8essed to purchase tax under s. lO(b). 
In the result, both the appeals are dismissed with 
costs. 
Appeals dismissed. 
AMBA LAL 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, 
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAo and 
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Evidence-Customs authorities recovering articles suspected to 
have been smuggled-Accused pleading articles brought from Pakistan 
at time of partition-Burden of proof-Imports Exports Control 
Act, I947 (IO of z947), s. 3-Sea Customs Act, z878 (8 of z878), 
ss. z9, z67(8) and z78-A-Land Customs Act, z924 (Ig of z924), 
ss. 5 and 7-Indian Evidence Act, z872 (r of r872), s. ro6. 
II9 
October 3. 
v. 
v.·he U11irJ11 "f 
India 
~'..;.. .Otlu:r_{ 
934 
SDPRE:IIE COt.:HT REPORTS 
[1961) 
T'1e appellants house was searched on June 22, 1951, by the 
(us toms authorities and ttn articles v.·ere recovered therefrom. 
Jn the inquiry before the Collector the appellant stated that the 
lirst five articles had been brought by him in 1947 from Pakistan 
after partition and that with respect 10 thr othrr fi\·earticles he 
was a bona fide purchaser tllt'reof. 
The CQIJector held that the 
appellant had failed to establish his case and held that the 
goods were imported into India in contravention of s. 3, Import 
Export Control Act read with ss. 19 and 167(8). Sea Customs Act 
ancl ss. 4 and 5 Land Customs Act read with s. 7 thereof. This 
decision was upheld on appral by the Central Board of RC\·enue 
and by the Central Government on revision. The appellant con-
tended that: (1) the onus of proving that the first five articles 
were smuggled goods was on the department which it hacl fai!ecl 
to discharge, anti (2) C\·en if the other five articles which he 
purchased were smuggled goods he was not concerned with their 
importation. 
Held, that the onus was on the authorities to establish that 
the fust five articles were imported into India after ~larch 1948, 
when the customs barrier was put up for the first time between 
India and Pakistan, and that the authorities having !ailed to 
adduce any evidence to prove this fact the appellant coulrl not 
be held guilty of any of the offences charged. The onus did not 
shift by virtue of s. i 78A, Sea Customs Act or s. 5, Land 
Customs Act, as the former section was not in operation at the 
relevant time and the latter section was not applicable to the 
facts of this case; nor did the onus shift by virtue of s. ro6, 
Evidence Act, as that section could not be used to undermine the 
well established rule that the burden was on the prosecution 
arid never shifted. 
· 
Shamb11 Nath Mehra v. The Stale of Ajm<r, [1956] S.C.R. 199, 
followed. 
With respect t.o the other five articles e\·en if the appellant 
was right in his contention that he was not roncernecl in their 
importation he was liable to the penalty under s. 7(1)(c). Land 
Customs. Act, 1924, for keeping the articles knowing them to he 
smuggled goods. 
CIVIL APPELLATE 
JURISDICTIO!':: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 153 of 1956. 
Appeal from tho judgm<'nt and order d .. tcd Novem-
ber 3, 1954, of the Punjab ,High Court in Civil Writ 
~o. 253.D of 1954. 
Veda Vyasa, S. K. Kapur,/(, K.Jain.and Gan.pat 
Rai, for the appellant. 
H. N. Sanyal, Addition.al Solicito

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.