The Pondicherry Generators Manufacturers'Association v. Director Local Administration Department Pondicherry3. The Pondicherry Municipality

The Pondicherry Generators Manufacturers'Association, rep.by its President J.C.KohliNo.3, Clifton Plaza, SaramPondicherry 605 013... Petitioner in W.P.8741, 8742/98, 8777/98 to 8781/98M/s. Shriram Honda Power Equipments Ltd,rep by its Authorised SignatoryMr. Unnikrishnan Nair,No.1, First Cross Street,Rajaji Nagar, Pondicherry.... Petitioner in W.P.6376 and 6378/98M/s. H.A. Kader,Pondicheery rep by its PartnerC.M.SyedNo.69 Kazi Street,Pondicheery.... Petitioner in W.P.6377/98 and 6379/98M/s. Crompton GreavesRep by G. Vijay KumarManager,No.3 Dr. M.G.R. Salai,Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.... Petitioner in W.P.7614/04 and 29912/05Vs.1. The Union of India rep.by its Secretary to Government (Local Administration Department) Pondicherry.2. The Director Local Administration Department Pondicherry... 1 and 2 Respondents in W.P.Nos.8741, 8742/98, 6376 to 6379/98, 8777 to 8781/983. The Karaikal Municipalityrep by its Special OfficerKaraikal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The CommissionerKaraikal MunicipalityKaraikal... Respondent in W.P.8741/98The Oulgaret Municipalityrep by its Special OfficerOulgaret.The CommissionerOulgaret MunicipalityOulgaret.... 3 and 4th Respondents in W.P.8742/98, 6376/98Pondicherry Municipalityrep by its Special Officer,Pondicherry.The CommissionerPondicherry MunicipalityPondicerry... 3 and 4th Respondents in W.P.6377/98Villianur Commune Panchayatrepresented by its Special OfficerVillianur, Pondicherry.The CommissionerVillianur Commune PanchayatPondicherry.... 3 and 4th Respondent in W.P.6378/98 and 8781/98Oulgaret Municipalityrep by its Special OfficerPondicherryThe CommissionerOulgaret MunicipalityPondicherry... 3 and 4th Respondents in W.P.6379/98The Special OfficerAriankuppam Commune PanchayatAriankuppam, PondicherryThe CommissionerAriankuppam Commune PanchayatAriankuppam, Pondicheery... 3 and 4th Respondents in W.P.8777/98 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Special OfficerBahour Commune PanchayatBahour, Pondicherry.The CommissionerBahour Commune PanchayatBahour, Pondicherry... 3and 4th Respondents in W.P.8778/98The Neravy Commune Panchayatrep by its Special OfficerNeravy, Karaikal.The CommissionerNeravy commune PanchayatNeravy, Karaikal... 3 and 4th Respondents in W.P.8779 /98The Kottucherry Commune PanchayatRep by its Special OfficerKottuchrry, Karaikal.The CommissionerKottucherry Commune PanchayatKottucherry, Karaikal... 3 and 4th Respondents in W.P.8780/981. The Union of IndiaRep by its Secretary to Government(Local Administration Department)Pondicherry.2. The DirectorLocal AdministrationPondicherry.3. Thavalakuppam municipality PanchayatPondicherry-7.4. The Commissioner/ Special OfficerThavalakuppam Municipality/ PanchayatPondicherry-7.... Respondents in W.P.7614/04The Commercial Tax Officer-IIPondicherry.... Respondents in W.P.29912/05 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer in W.P.8740 of 1998.Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamusto call for the records leading to the issue of the PondicherryMunicipalities (Tax on Procurement of Goods) Rules, 1997 of thefirst respondent published in the Gazette of Pondicherry bearingG.O.Ms.No.237/97/LAS dated 29.12.1997 and the Notification No.38-30/PM/CS/98 dated 31.03.1998 of the fourth respondent and publishedin the Extraordinary Official Gazette No.66 dated 31.03.1998 ofGovernment of Pondicherry and to quash the same as unconstitutionaland ultra vires and void abinitio.Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified Mandamusto calling for the records leading to the issue of the PondicherryMunicipalities (Tax on Procurement of Goods) Rules, 1997 of thefirst respondent published in the Gazette of Pondicherry bearingG.O.Ms.No.237/97/LAS dated 29.12.1997 and the Notification No.48-KM/Rev/97-98 dated 31.3.1998 (W.P.8741/98)Notification NO.1-16/Estt(1) OM/98 dated 31.3.1998 (W.P.8742/98) NotificationF.No.20.3.1998 Rev/ACP/CS dated 30.3.1998 (W.P.8777/98)Notification No.1-25/BCP/97-98 dated 31.3.1998 (W.P.NO.8778/98)Notifiation NCP/B1/8/98 dated 30.3.1998 (W.P.8779/98) NotificationNo.274/KCP/Rev./97-98 dated 30.3.1998 (W.P.8780/98) notificationNo.F.223/98/VCP dated 31.3.1998 (W.P.8781/98) of the Fourthrespondent and published in the Extraordinary Official GazetteNo.66 dated 31.03.1998 (W.P.8741 and 8742/98) of the fourthrespondent and published in the Extraordinary official GazetteNo.67 dated 31.3.1998 (W.P.NO.8777 to 8781/98) notification No.1-16/Estt (1)/OU1. Mty/98 dated 30.3.1998 (W.P.6376/98) NotificationNo.38-30/PM/C-3/98 dated 30.3.1998 (W.P.6377/98) NotificationNo.223/98/ VCP dated 30.3.1998 (W.P.6378/98 notification No.1-16/Estt (1) Oul/Mty-98 dated 30.3.1998 (W.P.6379/98) publishedinPondicherry edition of Malaimalar dated 31.3.1998 of the fourthrespondent and quash the same and unconstitutional and ultra viresand void abinitio.Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration that thetax on Pondicherry Municipalities (Tax on procuroment of Goods)rules 1997 (1) of the Ist Respondent is unconstitutional ultravires void in so far as the petitioner is concerned (W.P.7614/04)(2) as unconstitutional ultra vires void in so far as thepetitioner is concerned (W.P.29912/05) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, Senior Counsel for Mr.Perumbulavil Radhakrishnanin all the WpsFor Respondents : Mr.T.Murugesan, Govt.Pleader, Pondicherry assisted by Mr.K.K. Sasidharan A.G.P. in all the WpsCOMMON JUDGMENTP.K. MISRA, JChallenge in this batch of writ petitions is against theNotification dated 29.12.1997 issued by the Government ofPondicherry. Under such Notification, the Government ofPondicherry has purported to frame rules, viz., the PondicherryMunicipalities (Tax on Procurement of Goods) Rules, 1997(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). Such rules have beenframed in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub Section(2) of Section 118 read with Section 440 of the PondicherryMunicipalities Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").2. The petitioners have raised two contentions insupport of the various writ petitions. The first contention isthat by virtue of such Rule, the constitutional right envisagedunder Article 301 of the Constitution of India is being violated.The second contention is that such tax cannot be imposed and thepower conferred under the Act to the rule making authority toframe rules, delegating the power to impose taxation, by framingrules to that effect, must be taken to be invalid.3. Several counter affidavits have been filed indifferent writ petitions. The main contention raised in thecounter affidavit is to the effect that by virtue of the amendmenteffected in the Constitution, 73rd and 74th amendments to Article243-G and Article 243-H have been incorporated, which intend toconfer the right of imposing tax on the local bodies such as theMunicipalities and Panchayats and therefore, it cannot be said thatthe Municipality or the local body has the power to impose tax. Itis also indicated that in the Statute, provisions have been madeempowering the Government to frame rules with prior approval ofthe Assembly and therefore, it cannot be said that there is noauthority to impose tax by virtue of the rules. So far asviolation of Article 301 is concerned, it is contended that theprovisions are saved by virtue of Article 304 of the Constitution. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The latter contention relating to violation ofArticle 301 has engaged the attention of the Court not only in thiscase, but in several cases throughout the country. The provisionscontained in Article 301 and 304 being relevant are extractedhereunder:"Article 301: Freedom of trade, commerce andintercourse – Subject to the other provisions of thisPart, trade, commerce and intercourse throughout theterritory of India shall be free.Article 304 : Restrictions on trade, commerce andintercourse among States--Notwithstanding anything in article 301 or article303, the Legislature of a State may by law:--(a) impose on goods imported from other States orthe Union territories any tax to which similar goodsmanufactured or produced in that State are subject, so,however, as not to discriminate between goods so importedand goods so manufactured or produced; and(b) impose such reasonable restrictions on the freedom oftrade, commerce or intercourse with or within that Stateas may be required in the public interest:Provided that no Bill or amendment for the purposesof Clause (b) shall be introduced or moved in thelegislature of a State without the previous sanction ofthe President."5. As early as 1961, in the decision reported in AIR1961 SC 232 (Atiabari Tea Co., vs. State of Assam), the relativescope of Article 301 and Article 304 received the attention of theSupreme Court. In the said decision, it has been indicated thateven though under Article 301 it has been stated that trade,commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall befree, such provision as apparent from the very opening expressionis subject to other provisions of part XIII of the Constitution ofIndia. However, Article 304(a) has an important bearing on thematter, which envisages the authority of legislature to impose bylaw, any tax on goods imported from other States or the UnionTerritories to which similar goods manufactured or produced in thatState are subjected to. Article 304 (a) also envisages that whileimposing such tax, there cannot be any discrimination between goodsimported from outside and goods manufactured or produced within theState. These aspects had been clearly recognised in AIR 1961 SC232 referred to above. Subsequently, in the decision of theSupreme Court reported in AIR 1962 SC 1406 (Automobile Transport(Rajasthan) Ltd., vs. State of Rajasthan), it was made clear thatArticle 301 did not prohibit the imposition of anyregulatory/compensatory tax. Subsequently, it appears that in 1995 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Supplement (1) SCC 73 (Bhagatram Rajeevkumar vs. CST) and 1996 (9)SCC 136 (State of Bihar vs. Bihar Chamber of Commerce), the SupremeCourt introduced a discordant note by expanding the concept ofregulatory/compensatory tax, which necessitated rethinking in thematter and ultimately the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Courtin the decision reported in 2006 (7) SCC 241 (Jindal StainlessLtd., vs. State of Haryana) appears to have clarified the entireposition. It would be fruitful to extract the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. 6. After referring to almost all the decisions on thepoints and analysing the provisions of Articles 301, 302, 303 and304, the Constitution Bench ultimately held as follows:"35. Broadly, the above analysis of the scheme ofArticles 301 to 304 shows that Article 304 relates to theState Legislature while Article 302 relates to Parliamentin the matter of lifting of limitation, which, as statedabove, flows from the freedom of trade and commerceguaranteed under Article 301. Article 304 also confersupon the State Legislature power to lift the limitationsimposed on it by Article 301 and clause (1) of Article303. This aspect is important because the doctrine of"direct and immediate effect" which is mentioned inAtiabari Tea Co., emerges from the concept of"limitation" embodied in Article 301. It is thisdoctrine of direct and immediate effect which constitutesthe basis of the working test propounded vide para 19 (ofAIR) in Automobile Transport. Therefore, whenever thelaw is impugned as violative of Article 301, the Courtswill have to examine the effect of the operation of theimpugned law on the inter-State and the intra -Statemovement of goods, which movement constitutes an integralpart of trade. . . . . . Burden on the State: 46. Applying the above tests/parameters, whenever alaw is impugned as violative of Article 301 of theConstitution, the Court has to see whether the impugnedenactment facially or patently indicates quantifiabledata on the basis of which the compensatory tax is soughtto be levied. The Act must facially indicate the benefitwhich is quantifiable or measurable. It must broadlyindicate proportionality to the quantifiable benefit. Ifthe provisions are ambiguous or even if the Act does notindicate facially the quantifiable benefit, the burdenwill be on the State as a service/facility provider toshow by placing the material before the Court, that thepayment of compensatory tax is a reimbursement/recompense https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the quantifiable/measurable benefit provided or to beprovided to its payer(s). As soon as it is shown thatthe Act invades freedom of trade it is necessary toenquire whether the State has proved that therestrictions imposed by it way of taxation are reasonableand in public interest within the meaning of Article 304(b).Scope of Articles 301, 302 and 304 vis-a-visCompensatory Tax: 47. As stated above, taxing laws are not excludedfrom the operation of Article 301, which means that taxlaws can and do amount to restrictions on the freedomguaranteed to trade under Part XIII of the Constitution.This principle is well settled in Atiabari Tea Co. It isequally important to note that in Atiabari Tea Co., theSupreme Court propounded the doctrine of "direct andimmediate effect". Therefore, whenever a law ischallenged on the ground of violation of Article 301, theCourt has not only to examine the pith and substance ofthe levy but in addition thereto, the Court has to seethe effect and the operation of the impugned law oninter-State trade and commerce as well as intra-Statetrade and commerce.48. When any legislation, whether it would be ataxation law or a non-taxation law, is challenged beforethe Court as violating Article 301, the first question tobe asked is: what is the scope of the operation of thelaw? Whether it has chosen an activity like movement oftrade, commerce and intercourse throughout India, as thecriterion of its operation? If yes, the next question is: what is the effect of operation of the law on thefreedom guaranteed under Article 301? If the effect isto facilitate free flow of trade and commerce then it isregulation and if it is to impede or burden the activity,then the law is a restraint. After finding the law to bea restraint/restriction one has to see whether theimpugned law is enacted by Parliament or the StateLegislature. Clause (b) of Article 304 confers a powerupon the State Legislature similar to that conferred uponParliament by Article 302 subject to the followingdifferences:(a) While the power of Parliament under Article 302is subject to the prohibition of preference anddiscrimination decreed by Article 303 (1) unlessParliament makes the declaration under Article 303 (2),the State power contained in Article 304 (b) is madeexpressly free from the prohibition contained in Article https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 303 (1) because the opening words of Article 304 containa non obstante clause both to Article 301 and Article303.(b) While Parliament's power to impose restrictionsunder Article 302 is not subject to the requirement ofreasonableness, the power of the State to imposerestrictions under Article 304 is subject to thecondition that they are reasonable.(c) An additional requisite for the exercise of thepower under Article 304 (b) by the State Legislature isthat previous Presidential sanction is required for suchlegislation."7. It may be pointed out that subsequently a DivisionBench of this Court had tested the validity of the Tamil Nadu Taxon Entry of Goods in to the Local Areas Act, 2001 which includedlevy of tax on entry of schedule goods into local area. Such Acthas been found invalid in 2007 (2) CTC 577 (ITC Limited vs. TheState of Tamil Nadu), obviously, in view of the decision of theSupreme Court in Jindal Stainless Ltd. case (cited supra).8. In the light of the principles enunciated in theConstitution Bench noticed above, the provisions contained in theAct and the rules may be analysed to find out whether there hasbeen any violation of Article 301 or whether the provisions can besaved by invoking Article 304 (a). 9. Section 118 of the Act, empowers the Municipality toimpose property tax, professional tax, tax on advertisements, dutyon transfers of immovable property in the form of additional stampduty and tax on entertainments. Relevant provisions of Section 118(2) of The Pondicherry Municipalities Act, 1973 is extractedhereunder: "Section 118 (2): Subject to the previous sanctionof the Government and to any general or special orderwhich the Government may make in this behalf, everymunicipal council may levy for the purposes of this Act,any of the following taxes namely:(d) any other tax which the Legislature of the Unionterritory has power to impose in the Union territory."Sub section 3 envisages that the taxes specified in subsections 1 and 2 shall be assessed and levied in accordance withthe provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 440 contains the rule making power and authorise theGovernment, by Notification, to make rules to carry out all or anypurposes of the Act. Section 440 (2) lays down and that in particular and withoutprejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the rules mayprovide for or regulate -(a) All matters expressly required or allowed by the Act tobe prescribed. 10. In exercise of such power conferred under Section 118(2) (d) read with Section 440 of the Act, the Lieutenant-Governor of Pondicherry has framed the Pondicherry Municipalities(Tax on Procurement of Goods) Rules, 1997. As per Rule 2 (v) "Goods" means goods mentioned in theschedule appended to these rules. In the schedule it hasindicated three entries, which are (1) Cigarettes, Air conditionersand their spare parts/components (3) Generators and their spareparts/components. As per rule 2 (x) "Tax" means "Tax on Procurement of Goodsand as per rule 2 (ix) "Tax on procurement of Goods" means the taxleviable on goods, which are procured or brought outside the Unionterritory of Pondicherry and brought into the Municipal limit forthe purpose of sale, lease, consumption manufacturing, assembling,packing, re-packing for the purpose of sale or transfer otherwisethan by way of sale. Rule 3(1) authorises the Municipal Council to levy tax onprocurement of any goods mentioned in the schedule appended tothese rules, procured from or brought from outside the UnionTerritory of Pondicherry and brought into a Municipal limit for thepurpose of sale lease, consumption, manufacturing, assembling,packing and re-packing for the purpose of sale or transferotherwise than by way of sale. As per 3 (2) such tax shall be levied at 1% on the value orcost price of the goods shown in the invoice/ delivery challan. Rule (4) imposes the liability on every person exceptprocurement mentioned in the schedule from outside the Unionterritory of Pondicherry and brings into municipal limit for thepurpose of sale or transfer otherwise than by way of sale to paythe tax to the Municipality as may be levied under Rule 3 (2). Rule 8 envisages passing of resolution by the MunicipalCouncil to specify the rate of tax and date from which it shall belevied. 11. A bare reading of the aforesaid rules makes itclear that tax is sought to be levied on import of certainspecified goods from outside the union territory of Pondicherry toany Municipal area. On the face of it imposition of tax is in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contravention of the provisions contained in Article 301. TheGovernment of Union Territory of Pondicherry has not sought tojustify the imposition of such tax on the footing that such tax iscompensatory in nature in the sense that such tax is collected toupset any service to be provided to the persons importing suchgoods. 12. The Government has sought to justify imposition ofsuch tax by seeking inspiration from Article 304(a). In thiscontext, it is submitted by the Government Pleader, PondicherryUnion Territory that since the goods indicated in the scheduleviz., Cigarettes, Air Conditioners and their spare parts/componentsand Generators and their spare parts/components are not produced ormanufactured within the Union Territory of Pondicherry, it cannotbe said that there is any discrimination regarding the rate of taximposed on the importers, the purchasers or the manufacturers ofsuch goods within the territory. It is submitted that only when thepurchasers and manufacturers of goods within the territory ofPondicherry are subjected to tax at a lower rate and the importersof such goods are subjected to tax at a higher rate, it can be saidthat there is any discrimination. However, since no tax is beingimposed because there are no producers or manufacturers of suchgoods, there is no embargo on the State Legislature to impose anytax on the specified goods imported from outside. 13. Even though such a proposition may appear to be toosimplistic as well as attractive in nature and worthy ofacceptance, we do not think such doctrine advanced by the State canbe accepted. 14. A careful reading of Article 304 (a) makes it clearthat notwithstanding the provisions contained in Article 301, theState legislature by law, may impose any tax on goods brought fromoutside on par with tax imposed on such goods which are produced ormanufactured inside the State. Where there is no tax on the goodsof a particular type either because such goods are not produced ormanufactured within the State or because the State in its wisdomdoes not intend to levy any tax, it has no power to tax goodsimported from outside. The absence of any production or manufactureof a particular good within the State does not empower the State toimpose tax on goods imported from outside as such tax would be inviolation of Article 301, unless such tax is found to becompensatory in nature. Only if there is existence of any tax onparticular goods produced or manufactured within the State, theState would be authorised to impose similar tax on such goodsbrought from outside. The further restriction at that stage isthat the State cannot discriminate in the matter of rate oftaxation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. The above position receives considerable sustenancefrom the decision of the Supreme court reported in AIR 1966 SC1686, Kalyani Stores vs. State of Orissa. In the said decision,the Supreme Court was examining the validity of levy of tax onIndian Made Foreign Liquors brought from outside the State ofOrissa. The contention was raised to the effect that since therewas no production or manufacture to Indian Made Foreign Liquorswithin the State of Orissa, such tax can be levied by virtue ofprovisions contained in Article 304 (a). This contention wasrepelled in following words: "3. ...... From the affidavits fled in this Courtby the parties, it is clear that no "foreign liquor" wasbeing produced in the State at the material time; nor wasany such liquor produced at any time after theConstitution was brought into force. Counsel for theState, has, therefore, very fairly not supported thispart of the reasoning of the High Court.""4. ..... It seems, therefore, that countervailingduties are meant to equalise the burden on alcoholicliquors imported from outside the State and the burdenplaced by excise duties on alcoholic liquors manufacturedor produced in the State. If no alcoholic liquors similarto those produced or manufactured imported into the Stateare produced or manufactured, the right to imposecounterbalancing duties of excise levied on the goodsmanufactured in the State will not arise. It maytherefore be accepted that countervailing duties can onlybe levied if similar goods are actually produced ormanufactured in the State on which excise duties arebeing levied.. . .7. ..... Exercise of the power under Art.304(a) canonly be effective if the tax or duty imposed on goodsimported from other States and the Tax or duty imposed onsimilar goods manufactured or produced in that State aresuch that there is no discrimination against importedgoods. As no foreign liquor is produced or manufacturedin the State of Orissa the power to legislate given byArt.304 is not available and the restriction which isdeclared on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourseby Art.304 of the Constitution remains unfettered." 16. In our considered opinion, the aforesaidobservations made by the Supreme Court is a complete answer to thecontention raised by the learned Government Pleader. 17. The latter, however, has sought to strengthen hissubmission by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (1980) 4 SCC 697 ( State of Karnataka and another vs. HansaCorporation). 18. We have carefully gone through the aforesaiddecision. In the said case, the tax was found to be valid. Thetax challenged in the said case was levied on scheduled goodseither manufactured or produced in the State or imported fromoutside and there was no discrimination. We do not think the ratioof the said decision can be made applicable to the facts of thepresent case. 19. Similarly in the decision reported in AIR 1970 SC1912 (State of Kerala vs. A.B.Abdul Khadir), in the observation ofthe Supreme Court relied on in Kalyani Stores' case, had beendistinguished, is also not applicable to the present case. 20. In the present case, we are not concerned with anylaw of Parliament imposing reasonable restrictions as envisaged inArticle 304 (b). Similarly, we are not concerned with anyLegislation of the State which has the effect of imposing tax ongoods produced and manufactured inside the State as well as thegoods imported outside the State. In the absence of protectiveumbrella available in Article 304 (a) or 304 (b) we have nohesitation to hold that the imposition of tax in the present casecontravenes Article 301. The impugned Rules are, therefore liableto be quashed on the ground of violation of Article 301.21. The other contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioners is to the effect that in the present case, the tax issought to be imposed is by virtue of delegated legislation and notby virtue of law enacted by the State legislature. It issubmitted by the learned Senior Counsel that under part XIII ofthe Constitution, the tax can be imposed by law made by theLegislature and a delegated Legislation, such as Statutory Rulescannot be considered as "law enacted by Legislature". 22. The learned Government Pleader appearing for thePondicherry Government, on the other hand, submitted that by virtueof provisions introduced under 73rd and 74th amendment, power tolevy tax has been conferred on the local authorities such asMunicipalities and Panchayats and such purpose can be achievedthrough the delegated Legislation, as the Act itself envisagesframing of rules and the Rules having been framed only afterobtaining the prior sanction of the Legislature, must be taken tohave become part of the Statute itself. 23. In view of the conclusion already reached regardingthe invalidity of the provisions, on account of Article 301, it isnot necessary to delve further into the above aspect. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

24. In the writ petitions relating to challenge toimposition of tax on import of Cigarettes, learned counselappearing for the petitioner has raised an additional contentionthat such provision is violative of Article 286 of theConstitution. As already indicated, since the Rules are found tobe invalid by invoking the provisions contained under Article 301,it is not necessary to deal with such contention.25. In the writ petitions challenging the validity ofimposition of tax in respect of goods imported to a Panchayat, therelevant Rules are contained in the Pondicherry Village Panchayats(Tax on Procurement of Goods) Rules, 1997. According to thelearned Government Pleader, the origin is in Article 243-H and rulemaking power is envisaged under Section 127 r/w Section 118 ofPondicherry Village and Commune Panchayat Act, 1973 and by virtueof such provisions, Rules have been framed on 29.12.1997. Theprovisions containing such rules are similar to the correspondingprovisions contained in the Pondicherry Municipalities (Tax onprocurement of Goods) Rules, 1997. In fact, both the Rules wereframed on the very same day. Therefore, the analysis already madein respect of the provisions, contained in the Municipal Act andthe Rules is also applicable to such matters and therefore, it isnot necessary to embark upon any separate discussion and suchprovision containing such rules are also liable to be quashed forthe very same reason. 26. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions areallowed. No costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.vj2/dpkTo1. The Secretary to Government Union of India (Local Administration Department) Pondicherry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Director Local Administration Department Pondicherry3. The Special Officer, Karaikal MunicipalityKaraikal.4. The CommissionerKaraikal MunicipalityKaraikal5.The Special OfficerOulgaret MunicipalityOulgaret.6.The CommissionerOulgaret MunicipalityOulgaret.7. The Special Officer Pondicherry Municipality Pondicherry8. The Commissioner Pondicherry Municipality Pondicherry9. The Special Officer,Villianur Commune PanchayatVillianur, Pondicherry.10.The CommissionerVillianur Commune PanchayatPondicherry.11.The Special OfficerAriankuppam Commune PanchayatAriankuppam, Pondicherry12.The CommissionerAriankuppam Commune PanchayatAriankuppam, Pondicheery13.The Special OfficerBahour Commune PanchayatBahour, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14.The CommissionerBahour Commune PanchayatBahour, Pondicherry15.The Special Officer, Neravy Commune PanchayatNeravy, Karaikal.16.The CommissionerNeravy commune PanchayatNeravy, Karaikal17.The Special Officer, Kottucherry Commune PanchayatKottuchrry, Karaikal.18. The CommissionerKottucherry Commune PanchayatKottucherry, Karaikal19. Thavalakuppam municipality PanchayatPondicherry-7.20.The Commissioner/ Special OfficerThavalakuppam Municipality/ PanchayatPondicherry-7.21.The Commercial Tax Officer-IIPondicherry.2 ccs to Mr. Senior Government Pleader, SR. 47465, 474662 ccs to Mr.S.N. Kirubandam, Advocate, Sr. 47387 and 473885 ccs to Mr.Perumbulavi Radhakrishnan, Advocate, Sr. 47368, 47369,47370, 47371 and 47372W.P.No.8740 of 1998 and etc.,batchKK (CO)kk 21/8