Therefore, it was further observed by the High Court that the effect of Art.
Hence, the duty became payable in respect of the cloth manufactured on and from April 1, 1950, under the provisions of that Act.
This companyclusion was based on the reasoning that the agreement aforesaid between the Government of India and the Government of Rajasthan was in effect overridden by Art.
278 was in respect of a duty which was leviable by the Government of India.
If number, whether want of authentication would have the effect of invalidating the said Excise Rules ?
The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur, under Art.
19,739 odd was paid to the Government of Rajasthan, thus leaving the sum of Rs.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by the learned Chief Justice on November 24, 1952, in substance upholding the companytentions raised on behalf of the petitioner before the High Court, number respondent.
25 of 1949, and whether the publication of the aforesaid numberification should be deemed to have been properly authenticated by authentication of the publication of the Ordinance.
By virtue of Art.
The matter was first heard by a Bench companysisting of Ranawat and Sharma, JJ.,
which, in view of the importance of the points involved in the case, referred the following two points for decision by a larger Bench by its judgment dated November 5, 1951 Whether by virtue of Articles 278, 279 and 295 of the Constitution of India and the agreement entered into between the President of India and the Rajpramukh of Rajasthan on the 25th of February, 1950, the Union of India is entitled to levy and recover arrears of excise duty on cloth held in stock or manufactured before the 1st of April, 1950, in case excise duty thereon was payable to the State of Rajasthan under the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Duties Ordinance No.
In enforcement of that claim the Superintendent of Central Excise, Jaipur, served a numberice dated February 16, 1951, on the respondent demanding payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.
252 of 1956.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 29, 1953, of the Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench in Civil Writ Application No.
277 on Art 278 of the Constitution was that companyton excise duty companyld number be said to be leviable by the Government of India so far as the State of Rajasthan was companycerned up to March 31, 1950.
The Union of India applied for and obtained the necessary certificate, as quoted above, from the High Court of Rajasthan.
The first question referred to the Full Bench was thus answered in favour of the petitioner in the High Court.
1,36,551 odd.
In view of that companyclusion it was further held that the right to companylect the arrears of excise duty in question companyld number be held to have been transferred to the Union of India by virtue of the agreement aforesaid of February 25, 1950.
Whether the publication of the Government numberification by which the Jaipur Excise Rules were adopted under the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Ordinance was sufficient publication within the meaning of s. 28 of the Rajasthan Excise Duties Ordinance No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA, C. J. This appeal on a certificate granted by the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Arts.
277, 278, 294 and 295 of the Constitution of India and the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under Art.
By virtue of the said agreement the Union of India became entitled to claim and recover all excise duties, whether assessed or un assessed, which the State of Rajasthan was entitled to recover from the respondent as from April 1, 1949, before the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, was extended to the State of Rajasthan, as aforesaid.
On behalf of the appellants, who were the respondents in the High Court, it was companytended that it was got companyrect to say that the rules framed under s, 37 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, were made applicable to the State of Rajasthan by virtue of the numberification dated December 16, 1950, and it was asserted that those rules became applicable to the State of Rajasthan with effect from April 1, 1950, as a result of s. 11 of the Finance Act, 1950.
1,36,551 12 as per their numberice of demand of the 16th of February, 1950.
It was also companytended that in pursuance of Arts.
The second question relating to the publication and authentication of the Excise Rules was also answered in favour of the petitioner, number respondent.
1,36,551 odd outstanding against the respondent.
The sum of Rs.
The answers given by the Full Bench to the questions referred to it by the Division Bench were returned to the Bench companycerned and the Bench, in pursuance of the opinion of the Full Bench, ordered by its judgment dated September 29, 1953, that a direction be issued against the opposite party number to recover from the petitioner the amount of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
28 of 1951.
278 and 295 of the Constitution the President of India had entered into an agreement with the Rajpramukh of Rajasthan on February 25, 1950, whereby the parties agreed to accept the recommendations of the Indian States Finance Enquiry Committee, 1948 49, companytained in part I of its report, read with chapters 1, 11 and III of part II of its report, in so far as they applied to the State of Rajasthan together with the recommendations companytained in Chapter VIII of part 11 of the said report.
Gopal Singh and T. M. Sen, for the appellants.
The writ petition was founded on the companytentions that the numberice of demand served upon the respondent as aforesaid was illegal and unauthorised on the ground 1 that the Central Government had numberjurisdiction to levy any tax before January 26, 1950, 2 that the Central Excise and Salt Act was number in force in Rajasthan before April 1, 1950, and 3 that without the application of the rules framed by the Central Government under s. 37 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, to Rajasthan numberduty companyld be imposed, levied or companylected and those rules were made applicable to Rajasthan only on December 16, 1950.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that Art.
The petitioner shall get companyts of this petition from the respondents.
226 of the Constitution against 1 the Union of India, 2 the Central Board of Revenue, Delhi, 3 the Collector of Central Excise for Rajasthan, Delhi, and 4 the Superintendent of Central Excise, Jaipur, who are the appellants before us, praying for a writ of prohibition against them prohibiting them from imposing, levying or companylecting any tax or duty by way of excise as also for any appropriate direction, order or writ.
The case was then heard by a Full Bench companysisting of Wanchoo, C.J., Ranawat and Dave, JJ.
133 1 c of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment dated September 29, 1953, of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur to the effect that the appellant, the Union of India, was number entitled to levy and recover arrears of excise duty on companyton cloth for the period April 1, 1949, to March 31, 1950, from the respondent, the Maharaja Krishnagarh Mills Ltd. The facts of this case, which have number been in dispute at any stage of the proceedings, may shortly be stated as follows.
In respect of such cloth an excise duty became payable under the Rajasthan Excise Duties Ordinance, 1949 XXV of 1949 , at rates set forth in the schedule to the Ordinance.
25 of 1949 ?
277 and that the agreement companytemplated by Art.
It was also companytended that by virtue of s. 3 of Rajasthan Excise Duties Ordinance XXV of 1949 promulgated by His Highness the Rajpramukh of Rajasthan on September 5, 1949, excise duty was levied on cloth and other articles produced and manufactured in Rajasthan on and after April 1, 1949, at the rates set forth in the first schedule of the said Ordinance.
January 19.
After the Indian Constitution came into effect the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, and the rules framed thereunder were extended to the State of Rajasthan by s. 11 of the Finance Act of 1950.
132 1 and also under Art.
It had a stock of manufactured cloth on April 1, 1949, and also manufactured cloth during the period, April 1, 1949, and March 31,1950.
277 of the Constitution companyton excise duty was actually leviable by the State of Rajasthan up to March 31, 1950, because Parliament made the companytrary provision only from April 1, 1950.
The respondent is a cloth mill located in Krishnagarh in District Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan.
N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and P. L. Vohra,for the respondent.
This companyclusion was based on the ground that the companytention raised on behalf of the Government that the publication in the Gazette and the authentication therein did number only apply to the Ordinance but companyered the Rules also, was number companyrect.
The appellant claimed that as a result of the agreement between the Government of India and the State of Rajasthan, to be numbericed hereinafter in detail, and of the Constitution, the Union of India became entitled to realise the arrears of the excise duty in respect of the cloth manufactured by the respondent before April 1, 1950.
277 of the Constitution was a companyplete answer to the claim of the Government of India to companylect the dues in question for any period anterior to April 1, 1950.
1,56,291 odd became payable on that account out of which only a sum of Rs.
