IN RE. THE BILL TO AMEND S. 20 OF THB SEA CUSTOMS ACT, 1878, AND S. 3 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISES AND SALT ACT, 1944

SPECIAL REFERENCE CASE No. 1/1962Supreme Court[1964] 3 S.C.R. 78710 May 1963Bench: 9 JudgesAuthor: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA, S.K. DAS, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K.C. DAS GUPTA, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR143 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

This case involves a Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court concerning proposed amendments to Section 20 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The amendments aimed to apply these Acts to goods belonging to State Governments. Doubts arose whether these proposed amendments were inconsistent with Article 289 of the Constitution of India, which grants immunity to States from Union taxation. The President sought the Court's opinion on whether Article 289 precluded the Union from imposing customs duties on import/export or excise duties on production/manufacture of State property used for purposes other than those specified in Article 289(2). The Union of India and various State Governments presented their arguments.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

By a majority of 6 judges to 3, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India were in the nature of an exception to the exclusive legislative field of Parliament and were limited to taxes directly on property and income. The majority reasoned that while customs and excise duties relate to goods and commodities, they are not taxes directly on property but are more akin to trading taxes or imposts related to movement or manufacture. Therefore, they do not fall within the exemption granted by Article 289(1). The Court concluded that the proposed amendments would not be unconstitutional. The majority opinion, led by Sinha C.J., stated that the definition of 'taxation' in Article 366(28) must be cut down by context, and the exemption in Article 289(1) should be restricted to direct taxes on property, not indirect taxes like customs and excise duties, which are essential for the Union's regulatory powers over trade and commerce. The dissenting judges, however, argued for a broader interpretation of Article 289(1), including indirect taxes, based on the inclusive definition of 'taxation' in Article 366(28).

What were the issues?

The primary question before the Supreme Court was: 1. Whether the provisions of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India preclude the Union from imposing, or authorising the imposition of (a) customs duties on the import or export, or (b) excise duties on the production or manufacture in India, of the property of a State used for purposes other than those specified in clause (2) of that Article? Arguments presented: Assessee (States): The States contended that the exemption under Article 289(1) should be interpreted broadly, including indirect taxes like customs and excise duties, as the definition of 'taxation' in Article 366(28) is inclusive. They argued that the Union's power to regulate trade and commerce does not override the specific exemption granted to State property. They relied on the broad definition of 'taxation' and the principle that exemptions should be interpreted in favour of the assessee. Revenue (Union of India): The Union argued that Article 289(1) grants immunity only from direct taxes on property and income, not from indirect taxes like customs and excise duties. They contended that these duties are essentially regulatory in nature and are crucial for the Union's power to control trade and commerce. They argued that the amplitude of the definition in Article 366(28) needs to be cut down by the context of Article 289 and the Union's legislative powers. They cited the historical context of taxation laws and the distinction between direct and indirect taxes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 20,Section 3,Section 155,Section 25,Section 2

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 787 We are of opinion that the order of the High Court is correct and therefore dismiss the appeal with costs. u.i. ... 1 '""' • •• M "'41• T.lal.llc.\ Appeal dismissed. &1Ji.Hr D,,,,J J • IN RE. THE BILL TO AMEND S. 20 OF THB SEA CUSTOMS ACT, 1878, AND S. 3 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISES AND SALT ACT, 1944 (B. P. SINHA c. J., s. K. DAS, P. B. GAJENDIU.· G.olDKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K.C. DAS GUPTA, J.C. SHAJI, and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.)

Pre6ident'• Reference-Ouatom., dutiea and dutiea of e11:ci1t- Parliamenl'• power to levy such dutiea on the property of Btolt•- Direct and indirect taxes-Distinction, if valid under 00111- titution-·Ouatoms duties and duties of exciBe, if ta:u1 Oii properly-"Taxation", Definition-Bea Oustoma Act, 1878 (8 of 1878), s 20-0entral Excises and Bait Act, 1944 (1 of 1944). •· 3 (11-Go•vernment of India Act, 1935 (25 It 25 Geo. Ii, Oh. 42), as. 154, llili-Oon•titution of India, .frll. 246, 246, 285, 289, 366 \28).

As a result of a proposal to introduce in Parliament a Bill to amend s. 20 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, ands. 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, with a

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 20

All 86 judgments and leading authorities on Section 20 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →