PANDURONGA TIMBLO INDUSTRIES ETC. ETC versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 210 · Decided: 13-03-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
• 
PANDURONGA TIMBLO INDUSTRIES ETC. ETC: 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 13, 1992 
, [A.M. AHMADI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.) 
Constitution of I. ulia, 1950: 
Schedule VII, List II, Entry 58-Tax on;'Barge'-COmpetency of State 
C Legislature to enact Goa, Daman and Diu Barge Tax Ac4 1973. 
_ _... ~
Goa, Daman and Diu Barge Tax Ac4 1973/Goa, Daman and Diu · 
· Barge Tax Rules,· 1975: 
~ 
Sections 2(1) and 3/Rules 6 and 7-Levy of tax on 'Barge'-Constitu-· 
D tional validity ot-iJarg~eaning of-Constitution of India, 1950:'Schedule 
VII, Listi!, Entry 58-General Clauses Ac4 1897: Section 3(55) and 3(63). 
Word\" and PhraseMVord 'Baige'-Meaning of. 
The constitntional validity of the tax levied on barges, used or kept 
E for use in the Uniou Territory of Gcia, Daman and Diu, under Section .3 of 
the Goa, Daman and Din Barges Tax Act, 1973 was challenged by the 
appellants, contending that the word 'boat' could not include a mechani-
cally propelled vessel, and since the definition or a 0barge' in section 2(1) 
of the Act meant a mechanically propelled water craft used or capable of 
F 
being used as a means or transport or minerals, it coiitd not be termed as 
a boat to attract the legislative power conferred by Entry 58 in' List II of 
the VIIth Schedule and the legislation was clearly incompetent; that from 
, the definitions of'ship' and 'vessel' in Section 3(55) and 3(63) respectively 
of the General Clauses Act, 1897, it was clear that a 'boat' was not a 'ship' 
bot a vessel exclusively propelled by oars, and thus a _boat was a small 
G vessel not mechanically propelled, but propelled exclusively by oars and 
Entry 58 in Llst II of the VII Schedule conld be invoked for levying a tax 
on such a vessel, and not on a 'baige• which was a mechanically propeiled 
water craft; that the entire field in regard to mechanically propelled vessels 
was covered by Entries 24, 25 and 27 of Llst I and Entries 31 and 32 of 
H 
Llst Ill of the VII th Schedule and, therefore, the scope of_ Entry 58 in List 
210 
_.,>.: 
- .... 
:... 
>--
.l.. 
PANDURONGA TIMBLO INDS. v. U.0.1. 
211 
II of the Vllth Schedule was clearly confined to vessels other than mechani-
A · 
cally propelled vessels, like small boats, and, therefore, the word 'boat' in 
Entry 58 in List II must receive a narrow meaning and must be limited to 
a vessel exclusively propelled by oars. 
On behalf of the State, it was contended that the Legislature was 
competent to enact the Act by virtue of the power conferred by Entry 58 in B 
List II of the Vllth Schedule to the Constitution of India, which permitted 
levy of 'taxes on anbnals and boats', and since barges were boats, the 
Legislature was competent to levy and collect the tax on barges. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
c 
HELD 1.1 Boats of all descriptions can be taxed by the State Legis-
lature by reason of the power conferred by Entry 58 in List II of the Vllth 
Schedule to the Constitution of India, 1950. [219H] 
1.2 A 'barge' is a large flat-bottomed boat used for transporting D 
heavy burdens on canals and rivers, but is not generally a ocean-going 
vessel. It may or may not be fitted with an engine depending on its 
calibration. It is essentially a freight-boat chiefly meant for canal and 
river-navigation. Barges can be of different sizes and may be propelled by 
. oars, sails or engines. They, however, belong to the family of boats and E 
not ships. Section 2(1) of the Act also defines it .as a water craft mecbani-
cally propelled and used or capable of being used as a means of transport 
of minerals. Thus, the legislature has carved out only mechanically 
propelled barges for tax purposes. Therefore, the State Legislature was 
competent to tax it under Entry 58 of List II. [217G-H, 218A-C] 
F 
1.3 According to the General Clauses Act a 'ship' includes a vessel 
of every description used in navigation and not exclusively propelled by 
oars. A 'vessel', on the other hand, is a ship or a boat or any other 
description of vessel used for navigation. Therefore, a vessel which is 
exclusively propelled by oars would not fall within the definition of a ship G 
but would be covered by the wider definition of a vessel. From these two 
definitions it cannot be inferred that a mechanically propelled vessel is not 
a boat for the simple reason that the definition of vessel is wide enough to 
include a ship which is mechanically propelled. Both the definitions are 
inclusive definitions and the definition of ve

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