# bond of the No. 2 will be cancelled. V. M. SYED MOHAMMAD AND COMPANY v. THE ST A TE OF ANDHRA

- **Citation:** [1954] 1 S.C.R. 1117
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1952-08-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 187 and 188 of 1953
- **Bench:** Mehr Chand Mahajan C. J, MuKHERJEA, S. R. Das, V1v1AN BosE, Ghulam Hasan Jj
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bond-of-the-no-2-will-be-cancelled-v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-v-the-st-a-te-247
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India, art.
14-Government
of India
Act,
1935, "'"Y 48 in List I/ of the Seventh Schedule-Madras .General
Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939)-Whether ultra vires the
Constitution
or Government of India Act, 1935-Rule 16(5) framed
under the
Act-Whether ultra vires s. 5 (vi) of the Act.
Held, that the Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939) is
not ultra vires the
Government of India Act, 1935 as
entry 48
in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the
Government of India
Act, 1935 was wide enough to cover a law imposing a tax on the
purchaser of goods as well as on the seller.
Held, also
that inasmuch as there was
nothing to suggest
that the purchasers
of other commodities
were
similarly situated
as the purchasers
of hides and skins in the present case,
the Act
1954
Rao Shiv Bahadt11
Si'flgh and
Another
v.
The Stale of
Vindhya Pradesh.
Bhagwati].
1954
March111 ..
1954
V. M .• 'iy,d
Mohammad
and Company
v.
T ht St alt of.
Andhra
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
was not void under art. 14 of the
Constitution on the ground that
the impugned
Act singles out for
taxing
purchasers of certain
specified commodities only but
leaves
out purchasers of other
commodities.
Article 14
does not forbid
classification for
legislative purposes
provided
such
classification is based on some differentia
having a reasonable relation to the object and purpose of the law
in question.
Rule 16(5) framed
under the
Act contravenes the provisions
of s. 5(vi) of the Act but this sub-rule is severable and does not
affect the
validity of the rules
which
may otherwise lie within
the ambit of the Act.
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India ([1950] S.C.R.
869) relied upon.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JuRISDICTION :
Civil
Appeals
Nos. 187 and 188 of 1953.
Appeals under article 132 of the
Constitution
of
India from the Judgment and
Order, dated
the
29th
August, 1952,
of the High
Court of
Judicature
at
Madras in Writ Petitions Nos. 21 and 41 of 1952.
K. V. Venkatasubramania Iyer (A. N. Rangaswami
and M. S. K. Aiyangar, with him) for the appellant .
. M. Sesliachalapathi for the respondent.
V.
K. T.
Chari,
Advocate-General
of
Madras
(V. V. Raghavan, with him) for the
intervener (State
of Madras).
T. R. Balakrishna Iyer
and Sardar
Bahadur
for
the intervener (State of Travancore-Cochin).
Nittoor
Sreenivasa
Rao,
Advocate-General
of
Mysore (Porus A. Mehta, with him) for the intervener
(State of Mysore).
Lal Narayan Sinha (B. K. P. Sinha, with him)
for
the intervener (State of Bihar).
1954. March 11.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
DAs J.-These two appeals
arise
out
of
Writ
Petitions Nos. 21
and 41
of
1952 filed
in the High
Court of Judicature at Madras under article 226 questioning the validity of the Madras General Sales Tax
Act (IX of 1939) and of the Turnover and Assessment
Rules framed under that Act.
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1119
The petitioners are tanners carrying on business
in
Eluru, West Godawari District, which is now part of
the newly created State of Andhra. They make large
purchases of untanned hides and skins
and after tanning them in
their tanneries
they export
the tanned
hides and skins or sell the same to local purchasers.
In
the High Court the appellants impugned the
Act and
the rules on the following grounds :-
(a) The Provincial
Legislature had no power under
the Government of India Act of 1935 to
enact
a law
imposing a tax on purchasers ;
(b) The liability to pay tax on sales is thrown
on
the purchaser not
by the statute
but
by the rules.
This is an unconstitutional delegation by the legislature
·of its functions to the executive and the imposition
of
:the tax is accordingly illegal ;
( c) The Act has become void under article 14
of
the
Constitution,
as
it
singles
out
for
taxation
purchasers in some trades and is, therefore,
discrimina-
·tory; and
( d) The rules framed under the
Act are inconsist-
•ent with the provisions enacted in the body of the Act
:and are void.
The High Court repelled each of the aforesaid grounds
·except that

## Text

•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1117
have therefore eliminated from our consideration
the ·
whole of the evidence given by Shanti Lal Ahuja, the
Additional
District
Magistrate,
and come to our conclusion in regard to the gilt of the appellant
No. 1
relying solely on the testimony of the two independ- .
ent witnesses Gadkari and Perulakar.
The result therefore is
that the
appeal
of the
appellant No. 1 will be dismissed
except
with regard
to
his conviction and sentence
under
section 120-B
of the
Indian Penal Code and the convictions and sentences passed upon
him by the Judicial
Commissioner
under section 465
and section 466 as
also
section
161 of the
Indian Penal Code will be confirmed. The
appeal of the appellant
No. 2 will be allowed
and
he be acquitted
Md discharged of the offences with
which he was charged and immediately
set
at liberty.
The bail
bond of the
appellant
No. 2 will
be
cancelled.
V. M. SYED MOHAMMAD AND COMPANY
v.
THE ST A TE OF ANDHRA.
(With Connected Appeal)
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHERJEA,
S. R. DAS, V1v1AN BosE and
GHULAM HASAN JJ.J
Constitution
of
India, art.
14-Government
of India
Act,
1935, "'"Y 48 in List I/ of the Seventh Schedule-Madras .General
Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939)-Whether ultra vires the
Constitution
or Government of India Act, 1935-Rule 16(5) framed
under the
Act-Whether ultra vires s. 5 (vi) of the Act.
Held, that the Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939) is
not ultra vires the
Government of India Act, 1935 as
entry 48
in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the
Government of India
Act, 1935 was wide enough to cover a law imposing a tax on the
purchaser of goods as well as on the seller.
Held, also
that inasmuch as there was
nothing to suggest
that the purchasers
of other commodities
were
similarly situated
as the purchasers
of hides and skins in the present case,
the Act
1954
Rao Shiv Bahadt11
Si'flgh and
Another
v.
The Stale of
Vindhya Pradesh.
Bhagwati].
1954
March111 ..
1954
V. M .• 'iy,d
Mohammad
and Company
v.
T ht St alt of.
Andhra
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
was not void under art. 14 of the
Constitution on the ground that
the impugned
Act singles out for
taxing
purchasers of certain
specified commodities only but
leaves
out purchasers of other
commodities.
Article 14
does not forbid
classification for
legislative purposes
provided
such
classification is based on some differentia
having a reasonable relation to the object and purpose of the law
in question.
Rule 16(5) framed
under the
Act contravenes the provisions
of s. 5(vi) of the Act but this sub-rule is severable and does not
affect the
validity of the rules
which
may otherwise lie within
the ambit of the Act.
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India ([1950] S.C.R.
869) relied upon.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JuRISDICTION :
Civil
Appeals
Nos. 187 and 188 of 1953.
Appeals under article 132 of the
Constitution
of
India from the Judgment and
Order, dated
the
29th
August, 1952,
of the High
Court of
Judicature
at
Madras in Writ Petitions Nos. 21 and 41 of 1952.
K. V. Venkatasubramania Iyer (A. N. Rangaswami
and M. S. K. Aiyangar, with him) for the appellant .
. M. Sesliachalapathi for the respondent.
V.
K. T.
Chari,
Advocate-General
of
Madras
(V. V. Raghavan, with him) for the
intervener (State
of Madras).
T. R. Balakrishna Iyer
and Sardar
Bahadur
for
the intervener (State of Travancore-Cochin).
Nittoor
Sreenivasa
Rao,
Advocate-General
of
Mysore (Porus A. Mehta, with him) for the intervener
(State of Mysore).
Lal Narayan Sinha (B. K. P. Sinha, with him)
for
the intervener (State of Bihar).
1954. March 11.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
DAs J.-These two appeals
arise
out
of
Writ
Petitions Nos. 21
and 41
of
1952 filed
in the High
Court of Judicature at Madras under article 226 questioning the validity of the Madras General Sales Tax
Act (IX of 1939) and of the Turnover and Assessment
Rules framed under that Act.
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1119
The petitioners are tanners carrying on business
in
Eluru, West Godawari District, which is now part of
the newly created State of Andhra. They make large
purchases of untanned hides and skins
and after tanning them in
their tanneries
they export
the tanned
hides and skins or sell the same to local purchasers.
In
the High Court the appellants impugned the
Act and
the rules on the following grounds :-
(a) The Provincial
Legislature had no power under
the Government of India Act of 1935 to
enact
a law
imposing a tax on purchasers ;
(b) The liability to pay tax on sales is thrown
on
the purchaser not
by the statute
but
by the rules.
This is an unconstitutional delegation by the legislature
·of its functions to the executive and the imposition
of
:the tax is accordingly illegal ;
( c) The Act has become void under article 14
of
the
Constitution,
as
it
singles
out
for
taxation
purchasers in some trades and is, therefore,
discrimina-
·tory; and
( d) The rules framed under the
Act are inconsist-
•ent with the provisions enacted in the body of the Act
:and are void.
The High Court repelled each of the aforesaid grounds
·except that under item (d).
It held that rule 16(5) was
ultra vires in that it offended against section 5 (vi) of
·the Act and dismissed their applications.
Hence
the
;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
:appeals has not pressed the objection under item
(b)
·but has insisted on the remaining grounds
of
objec-
·tion. In our opinion the decisions of the High Court
·on those grounds are substantially
well-founded
and
correct.
On the
question
of legislative
competency
·the learned advocate drew our attention
to entry 54
in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
•of India and argued
that this
entry clearly indicated
that entry 48 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the
•Government
of
India Act, 1935,
under
which
the
1954
V. M.Syed
Mohammad
and Company
v.
The State of
Andhra
Das J.
1954
V. M.Syed
Afohammad
and Company
v.
Tiu Stale of
'4 ·1dhra
Das J.
1120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
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
cannot
be a
guide
for
ascertammg
the intention
of
a totally different
body,
namely, the
British Parliament, in enacting entry 48 in List
II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India
Act, 1935.
Further, we agree with
the
High Court
that entry 48 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the
Government of India
Act, on a proper
construction,
was wide enough to cover a law imposing tax on the
purchaser of goods as well and
that the
Constituent
Assembly in entry 54 of List II in the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution accepted this liberal construction of the corresponding entry 48 and expressed
in
clearer language what was implicit in that corresponding entry.
The next poi,n_t urged by the learned advocate
was
founded on the article 14 of the Constitution. The appellants' grievance is that the impugned Act singles
out
for taxing purchasers of
certain specified commodities
only but leaves out purchasers of all other commodities.
The principle
under! ying
the
equal
protection
clause
of the
Constitution
has been dealt
with and explained
in
Chiranjitlal
Chowdhury v.
The Union
of
India (1 )
and
several
subsequent
cases
and
need
not
be reiterated.
It is
well
settled
that
the guarantee
of
equal
protection
of laws does not require that
the same 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
on
some differentia having a reasonable
relation
to the
object and purpose of the law in question.
As pointed
out by the majority
of the
Bench
which decided
Chiranjitlal
Chowdhury's case,
there
ts
a
strong
presumption in favour of the validity
of legislative.
classification and it is for those who challenge it as.
(1) (19soJ s.c.R: s69.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1121
unconstitutional to allege and prove beyond all doubt
that the legislation
arbitrarily discriminates
between
different
persons similarly
circumstanced.
There
is
no material on the record before us to suggest that the
purchasers of other commodities are similarly
situated
as the purchasers of hides and skins.
The majority
decision in Chiranjitlal Chowdhury's case( 1 ) clearly applies
to the case before us
and there is
no
getting
away
from the position that
the appellants
before us have
not
discharged
the burden
of
proof that,
according to
the
majority
decision,
was
upon
them
to do.
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 to be ·ultra vires
by the
High Court and, indeed, the learned
AdvocateGeneral 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,
it .
has not been suggested before us that the appellants were
ever called upon to pay any tax on purchase of
hides
or skins in respect of which tax had been
previously
paid by some
prior
purchaser.
That
sub-rule
is
clearly severable and cannot affect the validity
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.
In the
premises
appeals which
must,
costs.
there is no substance in these
therefore,
be dismissed
with
Appeals dismissed.
Agent for the
respondent and for the interveners.
States of Madras, Mysore and Bihar: R. H. Dhebar.
(x) (1950] S.C.R. 86g.
1954
V. M. Syed·
Mohammad
and Compan)' ·
v.
The Statt of
Andhra
Das].