Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

CA Adarsh Agrawal (CMD of SHAYVIDZ Group)     24 April 2010

Jindal Stainless Ltd and Another vs State of Haryana (SC)

Jindal Stainless Limited and Another vs State of Haryana and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 16 Apr 2010]
Constitution - Indirect Tax - Constitution of India, arts. 304(a) and 304(b) - Reference to the larger Bench - DB of SC referred to the Constitution Bench few questions, the most important; whether the State enactments relating to levy of entry tax have to be tested with reference to both arts. 304(a) and 304(b) of the Constitution and whether art. 304(a) is conjunctive with or separate from art. 304(b)? - During the proceedings States, sought revisiting of the cases Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam and Ors., 1960 INDLAW SC 410 and Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1962 INDLAW SC 203 - Held, applying the tests laid down in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, 1965 INDLAW SC 164 and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2004 INDLAW SC 1067, it is found that on number of aspects a larger Bench of SC needs to revisit the interpretation of Part XIII of the Constitution including the various tests propounded in the judgments of the Constitution Bench of SC in the two cases, namely, Atiabari Tea Co. and Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. - Some of these aspects which need consideration by larger Bench of SC are interplay/interrelationship between arts. 304(a) and 304(b) - Significance of the word "and" between arts. 304(a) and 304(b) - Significance of the non obstante clause in art. 304 - Balancing of freedom of trade and commerce in art. 301 vis-a-vis the States' authority to levy taxes u/arts. 245 and 246 of the Constitution read with the appropriate legislative Entries in the Seventh Schedule, particularly in the context of movement of trade and commerce - Batch of cases be put before Chief Justice of India for constituting a suitable larger Bench for reconsideration of the judgments of this Court in Atiabari Tea Co. and Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. - Matter referred to Larger Bench.



Learning

 1 Replies


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register