AMRIT BANASPATI CO. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 25 · Decided: 10-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

)( 
AMRIT BANASPATI CO. LTD. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 10, 1995 
[J.S. VERMA, C.J. AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, J.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957-Section 178-Tenninal 
Tax-Imposition on-Goods brought into Union Territory from outside- C 
Held: neither violative of Article 301 nor was discriminatory and even if it 
did, it was saved by Article 302 of the Constitution. 
The appellant company carried on the business of manufacturing of 
and dealing in Vanaspati and its products. The products were carried by 
rail and/or by road into the Union Territory. The respondent realised D 
terminal tax from the appellant OD Vanaspati products carried by railway 
and/or road into the Union Territory. The appellant filed a writ petition 
before the High Court challenging the said realisation of terminal tax 
which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the 
appellant preferred the present appeal. 
E 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that Section 178 of the 
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 discriminated between goods 
manufactured within the Union Territory and the goods manufactured 
outside the said territory; that the goods manufactured outside the ter-
ritory alone. were liable to terminal tax under the Act; that this was an F 
impediment on the movement of goods from the State into the Union 
Territory; and that Section 178 of the Act violated Article 301 of the 
Constitution of India. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the appellant was G 
not placed in a position of great disadvantage as compared to other 
manufacturers of Vanaspati in the Union Territory· as there were no 
proper pleadings and proof or particulars on that sco~ and that Section 
178 of the .Act was saved by Article 302 of the Constitution. of India. 
Dismissi~ the appeal, this Court 
25 
H 
A 
B 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 2 S.C.R. . 
HELD : 1. It is settled law that the allegations regarding the violation 
of constitutional povision should be specific, clear and unambiguous and 
should give relevant particulars, and the burden is on the person who 
impeaches the law as violative of constitutional guarantee to show that the 
particular provision is infirm for all or any of the reasons stated by him. 
(31-G] 
Gauri Shankar and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. etc., (1994) 6 SCC 
349, referred to. 
2. The entire pleadings were scanned in this case. There is no 
sufficient or specific or definite pleadings with particulars, to state that 
C Section 178 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act violates Art 301 of the 
Constitution or is discriminatory. Moreover, on facts the presumptions 
which are applicable in the instant case have not been rebutted. (32-D] 
V.S. Rice and Oil Mills v. State of Andhra Pradesh etc., AIR (1964) SC 
D 1781 and R.K Garg v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1981) SC 2138, 
followed. 
G.K Krishnan etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and anr. etc., AIR (1975) 
SC 583, referred to. 
E 
2.1. Proceeding on the basis that Section 178 of the Delhi Municipal 
Corporation Act, 1957 directly and immediately impedes the movement of 
the goods (Vanaspati) from the State into the Union Territory it is clear 
that the statutory provision aforesaid is saved by Article 302 of the 
I 
J • 
Constitution of India. It is true that a tax may in certain cases, directly 
)-
and immediately impede the movement or now of trade, but the imposition 
F 
of a tax does not do so in every case. It depends upon the context and 
circumstances. (33-B] 
G 
State of Madras v. N.K Nataraja Mudaliar, AIR (1969) SC 147, 
followed. 
2.2. In the instant case the impugned tax law is enacted by Parlia-
ment. There is a presumption that the imposition of the tax is in public 
interest. That has not been offset by any contra material. In the cir-
cumstances imposition of terminal tax only on goods manufactured out-
side the Union Territory is neither discriminatory nor violative of Ar'lide 
H 302 of the Constitution of India. (33-D] 
AMRITBANASPATI CO. LTD. v. U.0.1. [PARIPOORNAN,J.] 
27 
R.R. Garg v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1981) SC 2138, followed. · A 
G.K Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR (1975) SC 583, referred 
to. 
3. It is only when the intra-state or inter-state movement of the 
persons or goods are impeded directly and immediately as distinct from B 
creating some indirect or inconsequential impediment, by any legislative 
or executive action, infringement of the fr

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