Rao Shiv Bahadt11 v. The Stale of Vindhya Pradesh

The High Court repelled each of the aforesaid grounds It held that rule 16(5) was ·except that under item (d). ultra vires in that it offended against section 5 (vi) of their applications. Hence ·the Act and dismissed ;present appeals by the appellants under the certificate granted by the High Court that it was a fit case for :appeal to this court. Learned advocate appearing in support of these (b) :appeals has not pressed the objection under item ·but has insisted on the remaining grounds of objec In our opinion the decisions of the High Court ·tion. ·on those grounds are substantially well-founded correct. On the question of competency ·the to entry 54 to the Constitution in List II of the Seventh Schedule •of India and argued entry clearly indicated that this that entry 48 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the •Government of legislative learned advocate drew our attention India Act, 1935, under which 1954 V. M.Syed Afohammad and Company v. Tiu Stale of '4 ·1dhra Das J. 1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] intention of cannot be a a totally different impugned Act was passed, was much narrower in its scope and could not be read as authorising the making of a law with respect to taxes on the purchase of goods. This argument appears to us to be fallacious, for the intention of the Constituent Assembly as expressed in entry 54 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution ascertammg ly, the British Parliament, in enacting entry 48 in List the Government of India II of the Seventh Schedule to Act, 1935. Further, we agree with the High Court that entry 48 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the construction, India Act, on a proper Government of imposing tax on the was wide enough to cover a law purchaser of goods as well and that the Constituent Assembly in entry 54 of List II in the Seventh Sche this liberal construc dule to the Constitution accepted tion of the corresponding entry 48 and expressed clearer language what was implicit in that correspond ing entry. body, India (1 that the need not clause of the reiterated. The next poi,n_t urged by The principle under! ying ) the guarantee the learned advocate was founded on the article 14 of the Constitution. The appel lants' grievance is impugned Act singles out for taxing purchasers of certain specified commodities only but leaves out purchasers of all other commodi ties. Constitution has been dealt tection in Chiranjitlal Chowdhury v. with and explained The Union of subsequent several is well protection settled of laws does not require law should be made applicable to all persons. Article 14, it has been said, does not forbid classification for legislative purposes, provided that such classification is based some differentia having a reasonable object and purpose of the law in question. As pointed out by the Bench which decided Chiranjitlal Chowdhury's case, a strong presumption legislative. classification and it is it as. (1) (1 9soJ s.c.R: s69. in favour of the validity those who challenge the same the majority relation It S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1121 circumstanced. There arbitrarily discriminates unconstitutional to allege and prove beyond all doubt between that the legislation different persons similarly that the no material on the record before us to suggest situated purchasers of other commodities are similarly as the purchasers of hides and skins. The majority de cision in Chiranjitlal Chowdhury's case( 1 ) clearly applies and there is no getting away to the case before us the appellants before us have from the position that that, accord discharged to do. the burden of proof decision, was upon the majority 1954 V. M. Syed· Mohammad and Compan)' · v. The Statt of Andhra Das]. to be Lastly, the learned advocate urges that rule 16(5) clearly contravenes the provisions of section 5(vi) of the Act. This sub-rule has been held ·ultra vires by the High Court and, indeed, the learned Advocate General of Madras did not in the High Court, as before us, dispute that rule 16(5) was repugnant to section 5(vi). That sub-rule, however, affects only unlicensed dealers and the appellants who are admittedly licensed dealers are not affected by that sub-rule. Further, has not been suggested before us that the appellants were ever called upon to pay any tax on purchase of hides previously or skins in respect of which tax had been paid by some prior purchaser. clearly severable and cannot affect of the rules which may otherwise be within the ambit of the Act. Our attention has not been drawn to any other infirmity in t11e rules. That the validity sub-rule it . In premises appeals which must, costs. therefore, is no substance in these be dismissed with Agent for the respondent and for the interveners. States of Madras, Mysore and Bihar: R. H. Dhebar. Appeals dismissed. (x) (1950] S.C.R. 86g.