LexFIRM GULAM HUSSAIN HAJI YAKUB & SONS versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• - 2 S.C.R. SUl'REME COURT REPORTS FIRM GULAM HUSSAIN HAJI YAKUB & SONS fl. STATE OFRAJASTHAN 255 (B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR a.nd T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) C'U8tom Duty-Export of Charcoal-Validity of State Council Order imposing li"bility-Regency Act for the Sirohi Minority Atiminiatration, 1947, a. 9-Rajaathan Ordinance (No . 16 of 1949), 1. 4(2). · The appellant firm was made liable to pay Rs. 24,395/· as customs duty for exporting charcoal from the State Sirohi and as it did not deposit the amount the collector of Sirohi, on the requisition of the customs authorities. issued a notice for r<covery of the· said amount und<r the Public Demands Recovery Act. The appellant moved the High Court under Art. •226 of the Constitution. Its case was that the order of the Sirohi State Council levying customs duty on the export of charcoal at the rate of /·BF per maund was invalid and ultra virea. The case of the respondent was that the said duty had been validly' levied by virtue of the resolution passed by the State Council and approved by the Rajmata. The High Court held in favour of the respondent and dismissed the petition. The question was whether the impugned order dated May 31, 1948, purported to have been passed in pursuance of the Council Resolution dated May 15, 1948, imposing for .the first time customs duty on export of charcoal, had .been validly iS!ued. Held, that the State Council did not have legislative power ; after the psssing of the Regency Act for the Sirohi Minority Administration, 1947, it could pass a law only with the approval of the Board of Regency of which the Rajmata Saheba was the President ; since there was nothing to show that the Board had approved of the order, it must be .held to be invalid. It 'was not correct to say that the Raj Mata could act independently of the Board, it was the Board alone that could collectively legislate or pass executive orders. The view of the High Court that the Raj Mata could be treated as the de facto Ruler as the State was clearlr erroneous, 1'61 -- April 19. 11111 Firm Qulam Hunoin llaji Tabb~ Soni v. Buu o Roj"""4n 256 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963] Nor could the levy on the appellant be sustained under the relevant provisions of Rajasthan Ordinance (No. 16 of 1949), which had no application. CxvIL APPELJ,ATE JurusDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 300 of tiO. Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 13, 1958, of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.C. Writ Application No. 58 of 1957. Chand Mal LO<lha and Rrijbans Kish.ore. for tho appellant. S. K. Kopu.r and D. Gupta, for the respondent. 1962. April l!l. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GoJnoJr•pdk• J. GAJENDRAGADKAR, J .-The appellant, Firm Ghulam Hussain Haji Yakoob & Sons, moved the Rajasthan High Courf by a petition under Art~ 226 of tha Constitution for the iBBue of a writ in the nature of prohibition or other writ or appropriate order, declaring that it was not liable to pay the customs duty sought to be levied on it by the Controller of Sirohi bv his order of the 9th Feb., 1956. It appears th~t one Mohammad Sagir had taken a contract for cutting forest of Harani Amrapura from tlie Thakur of Nibaj on the 12th ,July, 1!146. Thti duration of this contract was five years and tho purpose of the oontract was to enable the contractor to prepare charcoal. This contract was subsequently transferred to the appellant by the said Sagir on the 13th September, 1948. In due course, the contra'lt was extended by the Thakur of Nibaj by two years and on endorsement was made on it to that effect on the 15th April, 1950. Under this contract, the appellant prepared charcoal and exported it out of the State of Sirohi. The ABflis- tant CommiBBioner, Customs and Excise, Sirohi, took the view that the appellant was liable to pay .,. . ·-·v • • ( - ... 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 257 196! Finn Gulam Hus1ain Haji Yakub ch Sons customs duty@ As. -/Bf- per maund on the quantity of charcoal exported by it. The Asstt. Commis.sioner found that the charcoal thus exported by the appellant was 27, 003 mds. Accordingly, the said Asstt. Commissioner made a report to the Commis- sioner on the 11th February, 1954. The matter was then dealt with by the Dy. Commissioner, Customs & Excise, and he passed on order that the appellant had expor·ted charcoal without payment of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.