SARDAR SOMA SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF PEPSU AND UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 955 · Decided: 11-03-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
955 
arises out of my respect for the opinions of my Lord 
and other learned brothers-that the provisions of sec-
tion 7 were 
necessary and reasonable and fell within 
clause (5) of article 19. In my Judgment the four 
appeals 
as well as Petition No. 57 of 1952 should be 
dismissed. 
Appeals allowed, cases remanded. 
Agents for· the appellants · and petitioners : S. 
S. 
Shukla, 
R. 
A. 
Govind, Sardar Bahadur and P. K. 
Chatterji. 
Agents for the respondents: G. H. Rajadhyaksha and 
C. P. Lal. 
SARDAR SOMA SINGH AND OTHERS 
tJ. 
THE STATE OF PEPSU AND UNION OF INDIA. 
[MEHR CHAND 
MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHERJEA, 
S. R. DAs .. 
VIVIAN 
BoSE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.J 
Constitution 
of 
India, 
art. 
286(3)-The Patiala and East 
Punjab States Union General Sales Tax Ordinance, 2006 (XXXIII 
of 2006)-Whether ultra vires the Constitution. 
Held, that the Patiala and East Punjab States Union General 
Sales Tax Ordinance, 2006 (No. XXXIII of 2006) promulgated on 
6th November, 1949, is not ultra vires art. 286(3) of the Con-
stitution. 
Clause (3) of art. 286 conten1plates a post-Constitution law, 
for it must be a law made by 
a 
"Legislature 
of 
a 
State" 
which must refer to the l~egislature of a State created by the 
Constitution. 
ORIGINAL 
JuRISDICTJON : 
Petition No. 325 of 1953. 
Petition to the Supreme Court under article 32 
of the Constitution of India for enforcement of funda-
mental rights. 
S. P. Sinha (Bakshi Man Singh, with him) ·for 
the petitioners. 
C. · K 
Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India' and 
]. N. Kaushal (P. G. Gokhale, with them) for 
res-
pondent No. 1. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General 
for India (Porus 
A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale,·with him) for respond-
ent No. 2. 
· 
1954 
Ebrahim V a.tir 
Mavat 
v. 
The State of 
Bombay 
and Others. 
1954 
March 11. 
• 
• 
1954 
Sardar Soma 
Singh 
and Otf,ers 
v. 
The State of 
Pepsu and Union 
of India. 
Das]. 
956 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
1954. 
March 11. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
DAs J.-The short point raised on this petition filed 
in this court under article 32 of the Constitution is 
whether the Patiala and East Punjab States Union 
General Sales 
Tax Ordinance, 2006 (No. XXXIII of 
2006) which was promulgated on the 6th November, 
1949, has become void since the date of the commence-
ment of the Constitution. 
Article 286 ( 3) of 
the Constitution of India runs as 
follows:-
"286. 
(3) No law made 
by the Legislature 
of 
a State imposing, or authorising the imposition of, a 
tax on the sale or purchase of any such goods as have 
been declared by Parliament by law to be essential for 
the life of the community shall have effect unless it 
has been 
reserved 
for 
the consideration 
of 
the 
President and has received his assent." 
The Essential Goods (Declaration and Regulation of 
Tax on Sale or Purchase) Act, 1952 (Central Act No. 
LII of 1952) declared certain commodities 
as essen-
tial for 
the life of the community. 
In the schedule 
appended to the Act item 8 relates to "all cloth, 
woven on handlooms, coarse and medium cotton cloth 
made in mills or woven on power looms." 
Section 3 
of the same Act provides as follows :-
"3. 
Regulation of 
tax 
on sale 
or purchase of 
essential goods :- No law made after the commence-
ment of this Act by the Legislature of a State impos-
ing, or authorising the imposition of, a tax on the sale 
or purchase of any goods declared by this Act to be 
essential for the 
life of the community shall have 
effect unless it has been reserved for the consideration 
of the President and has received his assent." 
The petitioners are dealers in coarse cloth and 
medium cloth and their contention is that these com-
modities having been declared as essential for the life 
of the community they are not liable to pay sales tax 
on them. 
In the petition an allegation has been made 
that section 3 of Act LII of 1952 is in direct 
contra-
vention of article 286(3) of the Constitution. 
There 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
957 
does not appear 
to be any substance in this conten-
tion. Section 3 is in line with article 286(3) and there 
is no inconsistency 
between that section and the relev-
ant provision of 
the Constitution. 
The 
peut10ners 
are sought to be taxed under the Ordinance XXXIII 
of 2006, which, as an existing law ; has been continued 
by 
article 372. 
The question 
is 
whether 
that 
Ordinance contravenes the provisions of article 286(3) 
or, has since
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.