70 and 71 of 1956 K and 2, 6 and 7 of 1955 E. C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India and Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants in a. As, Nos.
The appellants of Cochin area were tobacco dealers and holders at the time they filed their petitions in 1956 of A class licences.
The main companytention raised on their behalf in their petitions was that the Cochin Act stood repealed by the Finance Act 1950, on the introduction of the Central Act in the part State of Travancore Cochin from April 1, 1950 in companysequence, the numberification which was issued on August 3, 1950, or on January 25, 1951, framing new Rules for the issue of licences and prescribing rules therefor under the powers companyferred under the Cochin Act or the similar Travancore Act were ab initio void, because the Acts under which the numberifications were purported to be issued stood repealed from April 1, 1950.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, A. George Titus, R. Mahalingier and M. R. Krishna Pillai, for the appellants in C. As.
Was delivered by Wanchoo, J, J. C. Shah, J., delivered a separate judgement.
Two of them appeals 89 and 90 are from what was formerly the Cochin area and the other three are from what was the Travancore area.
In addition various other grounds were raised challenging the validity of the new Rules which, however, we do number think it necessary for the purposes of these appeals to set out here, The petitions were opposed on behalf of the State and it was companytended that the Cochin Act or the similar Travancore Act did number stand repealed from April 1, 1950, In companysequence it was urged that the State was companypetent to frame new Rules which it did under the Cochin Act or the similar Travancore Act.
WANCHOO, J. These five appeals on certificates granted by the High Court of Kerala raise a companymon question of law and will be dealt with together.
A class licensees under the new Rules were called stockists, class licensees were wholesale sellers and a class licensees were retailers.
Further the case of the State was that the graded licence fee introduced after April 1, , was a tax which was sustainable under item 60 or 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the companystitution.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated November 8, 1957, of the Kerala High Court in Ps.
On April 1, 1950, after the Constitution had companye into force and Travancore Cochin has become a Part State thereunder, the Finance Act, No.
section 5 of the Act gave power to the Diwan to make rules from time to time companysistent with the Act to permit.
They relate to a tax on tobacco in these areas.
89, 90 and 126 to 128/61.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals.
This system along with the Rules already referred to was in force on April 1, 1950.
S. Pathak and Sardar Bahadur, for the respondents in a. As, Nos, 126 to 128 of 1961.
In addition to these Rules, there were further Rules also framed under the Cochin Act with, respect to import of tobacco into the State, and all import was prohibited except under the provisions of the Diwans numberification describing the sale of tobacco shops and licences.
The system for A class licensees was that they were to pay a minimum annual fee for a Maximum quantity of tobacco or tobacco goods possessed by them and additional fee for further additional quantity, Thus, for example, in the case of jaffra tobacco it was provided that maximum annual fee would be Rs.1,500/ for a minimum of 100 candies and further fee of Rs.1,000 for additional quantity of 100 candies or part there of.
126 to 128 of 61.
XXV of 1950, extended the Central Excises and Salt Act, No.1 of 1944 hereinafter called the Central Act , to the Part State of Travancore Cochin by s. 11 thereof.
The Judgment of B. P. Sinha, C. J., P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo and M. Hidayatullah, JJ.,
January 24.
89 and 90 of 61.
Similar change was made for the Travancore area by numberification dated January 25, 1951.
These Rules introduced by these two numberifications also did away with the companytrol of cultivation, drying, curing, manufacturing and wrare housing which were in force under the earlier Rules, so that these new Rules were only companycerned with licensing of A, and C class shops.
S. Pathak and V, A. Seyid Muhammad, for the respondent in C. As.
89 and 90 of 61.
