LexM/S. RAM NARAIN SONS LTD. versus ASST. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
483
K.rishnaswami was
anxious to support his
son,
the
present
appellant,
and
that
many of the witnesses
whom the respondent was obliged to examine;,
were
really
anxious to help the appellant. (Vide para 12).
We do not, however, desire to express any opinion on
these contentions, as we propose to leave them to the
decision of the Tribunal.
We accordingly set aside the order ~f the Tribunal,
and direct that the Election
Commission do reconsti-
tute the Tribunal to hear and decide
the question
whether
Krishnaswami Karayalar entered
into
the
contract with
the Government of
Travancore-Cochin
on behalf of
the joint family · or for his own personal
benefit, on a consideration of the evidence on record.
It is made
clear
that
no further evidence will be
allowed. The parties will bear their own costs in this
Court.
Appeal allowed.
Case remitted for hearing.
M/S. RAM NARAIN SONS LTD.
"·
ASST. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX
AND OTHERS
(and other cases)
(S. R. DAS, ACTING c. J., BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHA-
DAS, JAFER IMAM and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ. l
Constitution of India-Article 286(2)-Pro11iso thereto-Whe-
ther the proviso is meant to lift the ban only under Article 286(2) an4
no other-And thus does not lift the ban under Article 286{1)(a)
read with the Explanation-Assessment consisting of a single undi11idetl
sum in respect of totality of property-Wrongful inclusion therein of
certain item of property expressly
exempted from
taxation-Legnl
effect thereof-Central Pro11inces and Berar Act 1947 (XXI of J.947)
-Explanation II to Section 2(g) as
originally enacted-before its
amendment by Madhya Pradesh' Act IV of 1951-Whether offended
Article 286(1)(a) read with the Explanation-Whether the Presidents
order issued under the proviso to Article 286(2) protected the same.
Held,
per S. R. DAs
ACTING CHIEF
JusTICE,
BHAGWa\TI,
JAFER IMAM and
CHANDRASEKHARA
AIYAR JJ.
(JAGANNADHADAS J.
1953
Chattanlllho.
Karo,>alar
, ..
R(JtnJJ(;handra
l)'ar and another
Venkatarama
/glr].
1955
~20
1955
M/s. R4m Nar.O.
Sons IJd.
Yo
~'J'· CommissiOIJl'I'
.t S.US T.,, and
o//ws
484
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19551
dissenting). The bans imposed by Article 286 of the Constitution
on the taxing powers of the States are independent and separate and
each one of them has to be got over before a State Legislature can
impose tax on transactions of sale or purchase of g~s. The Expla~
nation to Article 286(i)(a) determines by the legal fiction created
therein the situs of the sale in the case of transactions coming with~
in that category and once it is deterl'nined by the application of the
Explanation that a transaction is outside the State it follows as a
matter of course that the State, with reference to which the transac~
tion can thus be predicated to be outside it, can never tax the trans--
action.
The ban under Article 286(i)(a) read with the Explanation is
effective independently of the fact that the transaction may have
taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or with
reference 'lo goods as have been declared by
Parliament by law to bet
essential for the life of the community.
The ban imposed
under
Article 286(2) is an independent and separate one and looks at the
transactions entirely from the point of view of their having taken
place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.
Even if such
transactions may also fall within the category of transactions covered
by Article 286( I) (a) and the
Explanation thereto or
Article 286( 3)
the moment Article 286(2) is attracted by reason of the ·transactions
being in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the ban under
Article 286(2) operates and such transactions can never be subjected
to tax at the instance of a
State
Legislature except in so far as
Parliament by law may otherwise provide or such power of taxation
is saved by the President's order conten1plated in the proviso.
The
ban under Article 286(2) may be saved by the President's order hue
that does not affect or lift the ban under Article 286(1)(a) read with
the Explanation.
Apart from
the aforesaid construction
put upon
the several
clauses of Article 286 in The Bengal Immunity Co. case the terms of
the proviso to Article 286(2) itself make it abundantly clear that the
proviso is meant only to lift the ban under
Article 286(2) and no
other.
It is a carJinal rule of interpretation thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.