LAWS(SC)-1964-1-1

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. BHAILAL BHAI:BHIKABHAI:CHHAGANBHAI:GOVINDBHAI:RATILAL:BHIKABHAI:SHIVABHAI:RAICHANDBHAI:HAZARILAL:MAGANBHAI:SANABHAI:MANSUKHLAL:KASTURCHAND:VENIBHAI:KALIDAS:CHHOTABHAI DEAD AFTER HIM DHAI BEN:AMARCHAND:BHAILAL BHAI:KHODABHAI A

Decided On January 20, 1964
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant
V/S
BHAILAL BHAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) THESE 31 appeals by the State of Madhya Pradesh are against the orders made by the High court' of Madhya Pradesh in 31 applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution by dealers in tobacco. All these petitioners carried on business in Madhya Bharat which later became part of the State of Madhya Pradesh. They were assessed to sales tax on their sales of tobacco in accordance with the notification issued by the State government in exercise of powers under s. 5 of the State Sales Tax Act and large amounts were collected by the Madhya Bharat government and later by the Madhya Pradesh government. The petitioners contended that the taxing provisions under which the tax was assessed and collected from them was unconstitutional as it infringed Art. 301 of the Constitution and did not come within the special provision of Art. 304(a). Accordingly, they prayed for appropriate writs or orders for refund of all the taxes that has been collected from them. In resisting these applications the Madhya Pradesh government contended, first, that the Wing provisions did not offend Art. 301 of the Constitution and that in any case, they satisfied the requirements of Art. 304(a). It was further contended that even if the taxing provision was unconstitutional and the assessment and collection of tax had been without any legal authority the petitioners were not entitled to the order for refund prayed for.

(3.) THE first notification was issued on 30/04/1950. This provided that with effect from the 1st day of May 1950 sales tax shall be collected in respect of goods specified in column 2 of the Schedule that was attached to the notification at the point of sale mentioned in column 3 at the rates mentioned in column 4. THE relevant portion of the Schedule ran thus:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1006_AIR(SC)_1964Html1.htm</FRM>