HIMMATLAL HARILAL MEHTA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 1122 · Decided: 16-03-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1954 
.March 16 
1122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
HIMMATLAL HARILAL MEHTA 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
AND OTHERS. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHERJEA, 
S. R. DA>, VIVIAN BosE and 
GHULAM HASAN JJ.] 
[1954] 
Coostitution of India, arts. 19(1) (g), 226, 286 (1) (a)-Central 
Provinces and Berar Sales Ta:r Act (Act XX! of 1947), as amended 
by Act XVI of 
1949-Explanation II to section 
2(g)-Whether 
ultra vires 
th~ 
Constitutian-Threat to use coercive rnachinery of 
Act for realising tax-Whether infringement of fundarnental rights 
under art. 19(J)(g) of the Constitution. 
Held, (i) that explanation II to s. 
2(g) of the Central 
Pro· 
vinces <ind Berar Sales Tax Act (Act XX! of 1947) as amended by 
Central Provinces and Berar Act (Act XVI of 1949) is ultra vires 
the State Legislature. 
(ii) A 
threat by the 
State 
to realize tax from the assessee 
without the authority of law by using the coercive machinery of 
the impugned Act is a sufficient infringement of his fundamental 
right under art. 19(1) (g) and gives him a right to seek relief under 
..art. 226 of the 
Constitution. 
The impugned 
Act, requiring the 
.assessee to deposit the whole of the tax before he can get the relief 
provided by it, cannot be said to provide an adequate alternative 
remedy. 
The State of Bomba;· v. The United Motors (India) Ltd. ([1953] 
S.C.R. 1069); Raleigh Investment Co. v. The Governor-General in 
Council (L.R. 74 I.A. 50); Mohd. Yasin v. The Town Area Committee-
{[1952] S.C.R. 572) referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : Civil 
Appeal No. 
20 of 1952. 
Appeal under article 132(1) 
India from the Judgment and 
April, 1952, 
of 
the 
High 
.at 
Nagpur in 
Miscellaneous 
1951. 
of the 
Constitution of 
Order dated the 
25th 
Court 
of 
Judicature 
Petition 
No. 1623 
of 
N. P. Engineer (R. S. Dabir and I. N. Shroff, with 
him) for the appellant. 
T. L. Shevde, 
Advocate-General of Madhya Pradesh, 
(T. P. Naik, with him) for respondent No. 1. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1123 
V. K. T. Chari, Advocate-General of Madras (V. V. 
Raghavan, with him) for the intervener. 
1954. March 16. The Judgment of the Court was 
deli1·ered by 
MAHAJAN C. J.-This is an appeal 
by leave 
from 
a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur 
dated 
the 
25th of April, 1952, 
dismissing a petition 
under article 
226 of the Constitution of India filed 
by 
the appellant 
questioning the 
vires of 
certain 
pro-
visions of the Central 
Provinces and Berar Sales Tax 
Act, 1947. 
The appellant represents 
a concern C. Parakh and 
Company (India) Limited, a company registered 
under 
the Indian Companies Act, 1913, having its head 
office 
at 
Bombay, and several 
branches 
in the 
State 
of 
Madhya 
Pradesh. 
The main business 
of the 
appel-
lant company is that of cotton. 
The 
head-office 
of 
the appellant at Bombay sells cotton bales to 
several 
mills and individuals under the control and the system 
regulated by the 
Textile 
Commissioner at 
Bombay, 
and upon a contract of sale being completed the goods 
after being ginned and pressed are sent from Khamgoan 
and other places in the State of Madhya Pradesh 
and 
are actually deliver-ed in 
Bombay and such other places 
outside the State of Madhya Pradesh as directed by 
the head office. 
The cotton bales 
are sent 
by rail 
under an insurance in favour 
of the appellant, 
and 
are delivered to the buyer by tender of railway receipt 
against the payment of price in Bombay. 
Under the Central Provinces and 
Berar 
Sales Tax 
Act, 1947 (Act XXI of 1947), cotton 
was 
declared 
liable to sales tax on the 11th of April, 1949, and since 
that date the appellant commenced 
paying the tax in 
respect of the purchases made by it, 
and 
continued 
to pay it till the 31st 
of 
December, 1950. 
For the 
quarter ending on the 31st 
of 
March, 1951, the appel-
lant declined to pay the tax in respect of 'the purchases 
made during that quarter, realizing that it could 
not 
be made legally liable for the payment of this 
tax 
in 
the State of Madhya Pradesh, the 
transactions 
done 
or effected in 
Madhya Pradesh 
not 
being "sales" 
within that State. 
Apprehending that the company 
1954 
Himmatlal 
H arilal Mehta 
v. 
The State of 
M adh)'a Pradesh-
and Others 
Mahajan C. J. 
1954 
Himmatlal 
•Harilal Mehta 
v. 
Tht State of 
Madhva Pradesh 
and Others. 
Mahajan C. J. 
1124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
may be subjected to the payment of the tax without 
authority of law, an application wa

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