M/S. STEELWORTH LTD. versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 16-01-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 
589 
ask for a refund of the money pa.id. It is a well-
established principal that courts will not entertain 
an action for money had and received, where, in 
order to succeed, the plaintiff has to prove his own 
fraud. We are further in agreement with the High 
Court that in oases in which there is stipulation 
that by reason of a breach of warranty··by one of 
the parties to the contract, the other party shall be 
discharged from the performance of his part of the 
contract, neither s. 65 nor s. 64 of the Indian 
Contract Act has any application. 
For the reasons giv.en above we have come to 
the conclusion that there in no merit in the appeal. 
The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
M/s. STEELWORTH LTD. 
'!)8. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
lB. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, M. 1IIDAYATULLAH' 
J.C. SHAH and J. R.MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Saki Tax-Provincial legialation imposing Un; in certain 
circu111.!lancea-Oonstitutional 
validity-Amendment-Effect--
Assam Sales T1J11: Act, 1947 (Act, XVII of 1947), as amended by 
Assam Sale8 T1J11: (Amendment Act, 1960) (Act, XIII of 1960) 
s. 15 (1) (b) (i) (b) and (c)-Oonstitution of India, Arts. 14, 19 
(l)(f). 
The petitioner carried on business of manufacturing, 
selling and supplying iron and steel materials in the State of 
Assam. Before the Assam Sales Tax Amendment Act of 1960, 
it held a registration certificate under which all its purchases for 
use in manufacture or production of goods taxable under the 
Act were exempted from Sales Tax, but after the amendment 
it became liable to pay tax on those goods. It was contended 
that by omission of sub-cl. (b), discrimination was introduced 
by differentiating between materials bought for articles to be 
supplied against a contract and articles produced and sold by 
the petitioner and that this was not a reasonable classification 
1912 
Mithoolol Na]Oi 
v. 
Li/• Inm011U 
Corporation of lnii< 
Dos 1. 
.... 
1962 
1....,.,,. 16. 
"'' 
Jl(AIW-llt 
l.U'. 
v • 
.,.,...,,,,.,, .. 
x.., .1. 
590 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. 
hued on any intelligible differentia and therefore, the amend-
ment by Act XIII of 1960, was violative of Aris. 14 and 19(1) 
(f) of the Constitution. 
Held, that the object of the amending Act was to raiJe 
revenue for the State. 
It was for the legislature to decide aa 
to what articles it should tax and what articlci it should not 
i.x and if it dccidrd to Impose the tax on certain articles it 
thought necessary, that was a question of policy into which 
the courts cannot enter and in such circumstances per ll there 
is no discrimination. 
Besides, the provision against diJCri-
mination waa not on articles but on pcrst>ns and the petitioner 
failed to show how the imposition of this tax was an unreas-
onable restricti<>n on the right to carry on trade. 
ORIGINAL Junrsn1CTION Writ 
Petition No. 
184 of 1961. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of 
India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
C. B. Agancala, R. L. AgaTUXJ/a and P. C. 
Agarwala, for the petitioner. 
Naunit Lal, for the respondents. 
1962. January Hi. The Judgment of tho Court 
was delivered by 
KAPUR J.-This is a petition under Art. 32 of 
the Constitution challenging the legality of the 
amendment introduced in s. 15 of the Assam Se.Jes 
Tax Act, 1947 (Act XVII of 1947), by s. 2 of the 
ABBam Sales T .. x (Amendment) Act, 1960 (Act XIII 
of 1960), by which sub-s. (b) of item (i) of sub-cl. (b) 
of cl. ( l) was deleted and thereby sales of goods to 
a registered dealer intended for use in production of 
goods for sale became liable to sales tax. 
The appt·llant Company is a limited company 
carrying on in the 8tate of Assam its busin088 of 
manufacturing, selling and supplying iron and steel 
materials. It held a Registration Certificate under 
the A88am Sa.lee Tax Act, as it was before the 
amendment of 1960. Under that Act all its purehe.ses 
for use in manufacture or production of goods taxable 
undf'lr the Act were exempt from sales tax but after 
the amendment of the Act there was a deletion in 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
591 
the Registration Cert.ificate of certain goods, e.g., 
cast iron, iron plates, steel ha.rs and galvanised wire 
which were used by the petitioner in the manufacture 
of its finished products which were also taxable in 
the State. Consequently it has become liable to pay 
tax on those goods purchased for use in the manu-
facture of goods and the cost of pro

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