LexR. C. JALL versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 8, S. Jfunno 1..~l v. 8. 8. Rajk.,.., Slid. J, IY~2 Fth1uary 21. 436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1002] SUPP· as property. The High Court was therefore, in our judgment, in error in holding that the right dccla· rc<l in favour of Khilonahai was not possessed by her, nor are we able to agree with the submission of the learned ·counsel for Raj Kumar th·1t it was not property within the meaning of s. 14 of the Act. On that view of the case, by virtue of ss. 15 and l6 of the Act, the interest deolared in favour of Khilonabai devolved upon her sons Munnalal and Ra.mchand to the exclusion of her grandson Rajkumar. The decree passed hy the High Cuurt is therefore modifie<l in this respect and the decree passed by the trial Court restored. Having regard to the p11rtial success of the parties, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal and in the High Court. Appeal partl,y allowed. R. C. JALL v. UNION OF INDIA (B. P. SI:SIIA, c. J., K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGO· PALA AYYA~GAH, J. R. '.\TuDHOLKAR and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) Railu•a.y -- ,'\1litfo1 recorer.rJ of CP&.r1-limitation-Jlaint .. n.inrzbilit11 -- Co11signee ~f !iable--l1ulirtn Limitation Act, mos (LY of 1908), Art.;, 149, no;;o -- Con•litution of l11dia, Arts 265, .)72 - Ordinance Yo. 39 or 1944 -- Ordinance 6 of 1947, .•.. 1-•;oal Production Fund Ritl,., /!144, rr.6, .1, 3(a), 3(b) -Supreme Court Rule.•, 19W, as amended, 0. XI' lll, r.2. • 3 S.d.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 431 The appellant, Amalgamated Coalfields, despatched by rail three consignments of coal to appellant R. C. Jail from Junner-Deo to Indore. The appellant R. C. Jail took deli- very of the coal after paying the freight, but by mistake the ccss payable as surcharge was not recovered from him at the time of delivery of goods. On April 15, 1953, the Union of India representing the Central and Western Railways filed a suit before the Civil Judge Chhindwara, for the recovery of the said cess. Since important questions of interpretation of 'the Government of India Act, 1935 and the Constitution were involved, the High Court withdrew the case to its own file for trial. The appellants inter alia, pleaded that the levy was illegal and the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court decreed the suit and held that it was within time and the appellants were liable to pay the cess against which the pre- sent appeals were preferred. It was urged by the appellants (1) that art. 149 of the Indian Limitation Act did not apply and the suit was governed by art. 120 of the Limitation Act; (2) that the tax could not be sustained under Art. 265 of the Constitution; ( 3) that the excise duty could not be levied on the consignee; ( 4) that the purpose of the Ordinance had exhausted and the Central Government could no longer levy the tax; (5) that under the statutory rules only the consignee was liable to pay. Held, that art. 149 of the Indian Limitation Act read with art. 120 of the said Act applied to the present case and the suit was within time. Kirpa Sanker v. Janki Prasad, A.I.R. 1942 Pat. 87, Secre,tary of State for India v. GuruProshad Dhur, (1893) I.L.R. 20 Cal 51; Inderchand v. Secretary of St,atefor India (194l) 9 I.T.R. 673 and Government of India v. Taylor, (1955) 27 l.T.R. 356, held inapplicable, The repealing Ordinance, being a temporary one, expir· ed after it fulfilled its purpose. · As it had continued the life of the original Ordinance which was a permanent one, in res- pect of past transaction, the expiry of its life could not have any effect on that law to the extent saved. The repealed to ordinance, to the extent saved, continued to have force under Art. 372 of the Constitution and it could not be said that the coal cess was levied without authority of law within the mean- ing of Art. 265 of the Constitution. · Hansraj Moolji v. The State of Bombay, (1957) S.C.R. 634, relied on. The Excise duty is primarily a duty on the production or manufacture of goods produced or manufactured within 1962 • R. c. Jail v. Union of IntlU. 1962 R.C. Jail •• llnion of India 4S8 SUPHEME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. the country. Sulijcct ahvays to the legislath·e cornpctencc of the taxi11g authority, the said tax can be levied at a conveni- ent stage so long as the character of the impost, is not lost . The method of collection does not affect the essence of the duty Out only relates to the n1achincry of collection for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.