# Ebrahim V a.tir Mavat v. The State of Bombay and Others

- **Citation:** [1954] 1 S.C.R. 955
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1954
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ebrahim-v-a-tir-mavat-v-the-state-of-bombay-and-others-286
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

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 section 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 Constitution.
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 fundamental 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
respondent No. 1.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General
for India (Porus
A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale,·with him) for respondent 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 commencement 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 essential 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 commencement of this Act by the Legislature of a State imposing, 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 commodities 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
contravention of article 286(3) of the Constitution.
There
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
957
does not appear
to be any substance in this contention. Section 3 is in line with article 286(3) and there
is no inco

## Text

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 section 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 Constitution.
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 fundamental 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
respondent No. 1.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General
for India (Porus
A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale,·with him) for respondent 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 commencement 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 essential 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 commencement of this Act by the Legislature of a State imposing, 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 commodities 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
contravention of article 286(3) of the Constitution.
There
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
957
does not appear
to be any substance in this contention. Section 3 is in line with article 286(3) and there
is no inconsistency
between that section and the relevant 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 been altered, repealed of amended by any
competent legislative authority. It is quite clear that
section 3 of Act LII of 1952 does not affect the
Ordinance, for the Ordinance was not made after the
commencement
of
that
Act.
The only
question,
therefore, is
whether the Ordinance runs counter to
clause (3) of article 286 of the Constitution. A perusal
of that clause will at once indicate that that clause
contemplates a post-Constitution law, for it must be a
law made by a "Legislature of a State" which must
'refer to the Legislature of a State created by the Constitution.
Further, and what is more important, it
contemplates a law which can be but has not been
reserved for the consideration of the President and has
not received his
assent.
This provision clearly points
to post-Constitution law, for there can be no question
of an existing law continued by article
372 being
reserved
for
the consideration of
the President
for
receiving his assent.
As
we
are concerned
in this
application with a pre-Constitution law, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion as to the validity or
otherwise of a law made after the commencement of
the Constitution but before the coming into operation
of Act LI! of 1952.
The result, therefore, is that there is no substance in
this petition and we dismiss it with costs.
Petition dismissed.
Agent for the petitioners : Sardar Singh.
Agent for respondent No. 1 : R. H. Dhebar .
•
1954
Sardar Soma
Singh
and Others
v.
Th, State of
Pepsu and Union
of India.
Das].