# Mithoolol Na]Oi v. Li/• Inm011U Corporation of lnii< Dos 1 - **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 589 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1962 - **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 184 of 1961 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mithoolol-na-oi-v-li-inm011u-corporation-of-lnii-dos-1-2325 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote 2 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 589 ask for a refund of the money pa.id. It is a wellestablished principal that courts will not entertain an action for money had and received, where, in order to succeed, the plaintiff has to prove his own fraud. We are further in agreement with the High Court that in oases in which there is stipulation that by reason of a breach of warranty··by one of the parties to the contract, the other party shall be discharged from the performance of his part of the contract, neither s. 65 nor s. 64 of the Indian Contract Act has any application. For the reasons giv.en above we have come to the conclusion that there in no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. M/s. STEELWORTH LTD. '!)8. STATE OF ASSAM lB. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, M. 1IIDAYATULLAH' J.C. SHAH and J. R.MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) Saki Tax-Provincial legialation imposing Un; in certain circu111.!lancea-Oonstitutional validity-Amendment-Effect-- Assam Sales T1J11: Act, 1947 (Act, XVII of 1947), as amended by Assam Sale8 T1J11: (Amendment Act, 1960) (Act, XIII of 1960) s. 15 (1) (b) (i) (b) and (c)-Oonstitution of India, Arts. 14, 19 (l)(f). The petitioner carried on business of manufacturing, selling and supplying iron and steel materials in the State of Assam. Before the Assam Sales Tax Amendment Act of 1960, it held a registration certificate under which all its purchases for use in manufacture or production of goods taxable under the Act were exempted from Sales Tax, but after the amendment it became liable to pay tax on those goods. It was contended that by omission of sub-cl. (b), discrimination was introduced by differentiating between materials bought for articles to be supplied against a contract and articles produced and sold by the petitioner and that this was not a reasonable classification 1912 Mithoolol Na]Oi v. Li/• Inm011U Corporation of lnii< Dos 1. .... 1962 1....,.,,. 16. "'' Jl(AIW-llt l.U'. v • .,.,...,,,,.,, .. x.., .1. 590 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. hued on any intelligible differentia and therefore, the amendment by Act XIII of 1960, was violative of Aris. 14 and 19(1) (f) of the Constitution. Held, that the object of the amending Act was to raiJe revenue for the State. It was for the legislature to decide aa to what articles it should tax and what articlci it should not i.x and if it dccidrd to Impose the tax on certain articles it thought necessary, that was a question of policy into which the courts cannot enter and in such circumstances per ll there is no discrimination. Besides, the provision against diJCrimination waa not on articles but on pcrst>ns and the petitioner failed to show how the imposition of this tax was an unreasonable restricti<>n on the right to carry on trade. ORIGINAL Junrsn1CTION Writ Petition No. 184 of 1961. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. C. B. Agancala, R. L. AgaTUXJ/a and P. C. Agarwala, for the petitioner. Naunit Lal, for the respondents. 1962. January Hi. The Judgment of tho Court was delivered by KAPUR J.-This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the amendment introduced in s. 15 of the Assam Se.Jes Tax Act, 1947 (Act XVII of 1947), by s. 2 of the ABBam Sales T .. x (Amendment) Act, 1960 (Act XIII of 1960), by which sub-s. (b) of item (i) of sub-cl. (b) of cl. ( l) was deleted and thereby sales of goods to a registered dealer intended for use in production of goods for sale became liable to sales tax. The appt·llant Company is a limited company carrying on in the 8tate of Assam its busin088 of manufacturing, selling and supplying iron and steel materials. It held a Registration Certificate under the A88am Sa.lee Tax Act, as it was before the amendment of 1960. Under that Act all its purehe.ses for use in manufacture or production of goods taxable undf'lr the Act were exempt from sales tax but after the amendment of the Act there was a deletion i ## Text 2 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 589 ask for a refund of the money pa.id. It is a wellestablished principal that courts will not entertain an action for money had and received, where, in order to succeed, the plaintiff has to prove his own fraud. We are further in agreement with the High Court that in oases in which there is stipulation that by reason of a breach of warranty··by one of the parties to the contract, the other party shall be discharged from the performance of his part of the contract, neither s. 65 nor s. 64 of the Indian Contract Act has any application. For the reasons giv.en above we have come to the conclusion that there in no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. M/s. STEELWORTH LTD. '!)8. STATE OF ASSAM lB. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, M. 1IIDAYATULLAH' J.C. SHAH and J. R.MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) Saki Tax-Provincial legialation imposing Un; in certain circu111.!lancea-Oonstitutional validity-Amendment-Effect-- Assam Sales T1J11: Act, 1947 (Act, XVII of 1947), as amended by Assam Sale8 T1J11: (Amendment Act, 1960) (Act, XIII of 1960) s. 15 (1) (b) (i) (b) and (c)-Oonstitution of India, Arts. 14, 19 (l)(f). The petitioner carried on business of manufacturing, selling and supplying iron and steel materials in the State of Assam. Before the Assam Sales Tax Amendment Act of 1960, it held a registration certificate under which all its purchases for use in manufacture or production of goods taxable under the Act were exempted from Sales Tax, but after the amendment it became liable to pay tax on those goods. It was contended that by omission of sub-cl. (b), discrimination was introduced by differentiating between materials bought for articles to be supplied against a contract and articles produced and sold by the petitioner and that this was not a reasonable classification 1912 Mithoolol Na]Oi v. Li/• Inm011U Corporation of lnii< Dos 1. .... 1962 1....,.,,. 16. "'' Jl(AIW-llt l.U'. v • .,.,...,,,,.,, .. x.., .1. 590 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. hued on any intelligible differentia and therefore, the amendment by Act XIII of 1960, was violative of Aris. 14 and 19(1) (f) of the Constitution. Held, that the object of the amending Act was to raiJe revenue for the State. It was for the legislature to decide aa to what articles it should tax and what articlci it should not i.x and if it dccidrd to Impose the tax on certain articles it thought necessary, that was a question of policy into which the courts cannot enter and in such circumstances per ll there is no discrimination. Besides, the provision against diJCrimination waa not on articles but on pcrst>ns and the petitioner failed to show how the imposition of this tax was an unreasonable restricti<>n on the right to carry on trade. ORIGINAL Junrsn1CTION Writ Petition No. 184 of 1961. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. C. B. Agancala, R. L. AgaTUXJ/a and P. C. Agarwala, for the petitioner. Naunit Lal, for the respondents. 1962. January Hi. The Judgment of tho Court was delivered by KAPUR J.-This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the amendment introduced in s. 15 of the Assam Se.Jes Tax Act, 1947 (Act XVII of 1947), by s. 2 of the ABBam Sales T .. x (Amendment) Act, 1960 (Act XIII of 1960), by which sub-s. (b) of item (i) of sub-cl. (b) of cl. ( l) was deleted and thereby sales of goods to a registered dealer intended for use in production of goods for sale became liable to sales tax. The appt·llant Company is a limited company carrying on in the 8tate of Assam its busin088 of manufacturing, selling and supplying iron and steel materials. It held a Registration Certificate under the A88am Sa.lee Tax Act, as it was before the amendment of 1960. Under that Act all its purehe.ses for use in manufacture or production of goods taxable undf'lr the Act were exempt from sales tax but after the amendment of the Act there was a deletion in 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 591 the Registration Cert.ificate of certain goods, e.g., cast iron, iron plates, steel ha.rs and galvanised wire which were used by the petitioner in the manufacture of its finished products which were also taxable in the State. Consequently it has become liable to pay tax on those goods purchased for use in the manufacture of goods and the cost of production has thereby gone up. Three points were raised by the petitioner :- (I) that the amendment introduced by Act XIII of 1960 is violative of Art. 14 because it discriminates between manufacturers who supply goods according to orders received and others who manufacture goods on their own account and sell them; (2) that the restriction imposed by the Amending 4ct is excessive and violative of Art. 19 (I )(f) ; and (3) that the refusal to a.mend the Registration Certificate by not reinstating the articles mentioned above affects th9 rights of the petitioner Company under Art. 19( I)( f). For the purpose of deciding these questions it is necessary to refer to the scheme of the Assam Sales Tax Act, l!J47 (Act XVII of 1917); Bys. 2(2)(a)(b) of that Act 'Contract' is defined as : "2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- (2) "contract'' means any agreement for carrying out for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration,- (a) the preparation, contructlon, fitting· out, improvement or repair of any moveable property or of any b'uilding, road, bridge or other immoveable property, or 1962 .Ill/,, SlulwM'th Lta. v. Biiiie of Ass,,,.. JIU 11/s . • Yt.1-U. Lid. v. B•r. q/ ..tss- ·-J. 592 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. (b) the insta 0 llation or repair of any machinery affixed to a building or other immoveable property." . Sec_tion 9 o~ th~t Act provides for compulsory regJBtrat1on. Sect1011 1 :l providtlll that a dealer registered under s. 9 shall be ~ranted a certificate of registration which shall specify the class or clasees of goods in which the said dealer carries on business and such other particulars M may be prescribed. Section 15(1 l( b)(il( b) an