LexKANSHI RAM JAGAN NATH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
1961
K.ANSHI RAM JAGAN NATH AND OTHERS
July 28.
•
v.
THE STATE
(P. B. GA.TENDRAGADKAR, K. SURRA RAO, M.
HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH and RAGHUBAR
DAYAL, ,TJ.)
Excise Dutiei-Law of erstwhi'.le Indian State providing
for royalty on bricks-Extension of Indian excise law to the
State on merger with part B State-Effect on prior law-Levy
of royalty, if repealed- Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944
(1of1944), ss. 2(d) 3(1)-Finance Act, 1950 (25 of 1950),
88. 11. 13 (2).
The Council of Regency of the erstwhile State of Patia!a
issued an order dated February 6, 1919, imposing a royalty on
bricks from all kiln-owners at the rate of Rs. 50 per one lakh.
After the State of Patiala became merged with the Patiala and
East Punjab States Union, a Part B State under the Constitu-
tion of India, the Finance Act, 1950, which can1e into force on
April 1, 1950, became operative in that State. By vi.itue of
s. 1 I of that Act the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, was
extended, inter alia, to Part B States, whil~ under s. 13(2) it
was provided that if immediately before April 1, 1950, there
was in force in any State a law corresponding to but other than
an Ac1 referred to in s. 1 I such law became repealed with
effect from that date. The legality of the levy of royalty on
bricks under the order dated February 19, 1949, after April
1, 1950, was challenged by the appellant on the grounds that
the royalty was in the nature of an excise duty, and that the
order levying it was a law corresponding to the Central
Excises and Salt Act, 194'4, and therefore became repealed by
s. 13(2) of the Finance Act, 1950.
Held, that' the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which
provided for the levy and collection of duties of excise on
. goods specified in the First Schedule to the Act did not by a
negative
provision expressly save other commodities, not
included in the Schedule, from the operation of any existing
local law.
Con,.quently, the order dated February 19, 1949,
passed by the erstwhile State of Patiala, was not a law corres-
ponding to the Act of 1944 and was not, therefore, within the
repeal created bys. 13(2) of the Finance Act, 1950.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 292 of 1958.
'
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT l{,EPORTS
943
Appeal from the judgment and dcf:rec dated
October '.?3, 1956, of the PEPSU (now l'unja.b)
High Court in l~egular Second Appeal No. 29 of
195!.
C. K. Daphtary, Svlfoitor-Geneml uf India,
J.B. JJadaohanji, Rav·inder Narain and 0. C. ,tfathnr,
for the appellants.
S. M. SiLTi, Advowlt;-General for tlte State of
Punjab, N. S. Bindra and P. D. Jlcnuu, for the
respondent.
1961. J11ly 28. Judgment of the: Court W<'.S
delivered by
1961
Kanshi Ram
Jagan Nath
v.
The Sta!t
HIDAYATULLAH, J.-The only question in this Jlidayatullah J.
appeal, with certificate under Art. 13:J(l )( c) uf the
Constitution, against the judgment and decree of
the High Court of Patiala and East :Punjab :::>tates
Union, is whether the levy of royalty at l{,s. 50
per one lakh bricks under n Robkar issued by the
ljlas-i-Khas (Council of Hegency),
Patiala i:ltate,
on February 6, 1919, is valid.
The Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the
present appellants in the Court of the
Hubordin~.te
Judge, l<'aridkot, for dee laration ~.nd injunction.
The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge, but on
appeal to the Distriet Court, the denisio.11 was
rcvurs('cl. On further appeal to thf' High Court,
the decision of the Adrlitional DiHtrid .Tudgo \1·iis
set aside, and that of the trial ,Judge n·otored.
In this appeal, the only point argurd is
whether the OYder of the lj[as .. i'.-Kha8 contim1f's to
be effective, after the ew10tm r:nt. of the :b'imrnc:o Act.
il9ii0. The suit was fikd on l\fa~· l:J, l!lii2, for
njunctiun agaimt notices of ckmand issued to the
appellants from the Tehsil Office. Faridko1, on or
about April :W, 1951.
The:
kanwcl Solicitor-
General conced!'s that the appc·llants' daim must.
'be confined to the 1wriod after Apr.il l, l95H, from
1961
A. anJ:Jki lt:t '1.
J uyrtn ..._Vath
\'.
1'he State
11 idaynt'U ll<L/i J
94i
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
which date the Finance Act, HIGO, began to
operate. He states that prior to that date the
law could not be co1rnidcrcd _to be invalid because
uf Art. "277, which saved taxes, duties, cesses or
fees which were being levied in any State prior to
the commencement of the ConstiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.