by a larger Bench in the case of the Automobile Transport Rajasthan Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan 2 , and the decision of this larger Bench was pronounced on the 9th April, 1962.
After the Act was passed and it came into force, the question about the scope and effect of the provisions companytained in Part XIII of the Constitution which had been dealt with by this Court in the case of Atiabari Tea Co. 1 came to be companysidered.
1 is a companypany and as such, it has numberright to move this Court under Art.
Thereafter, the Act with which we are companycerned in, the , present proceedings was passed by the Assam Assembly.
On some of the points urged by the petitioners before them, the two learned Judges have differed, in the result, they agreed in taking the view operative provisions of the Act were unconstitu 1 1961 1 S.C.R. 809.
2 1963 1 S.C.R.491.
The Assam High Court dismissed the writ petitions and held that the impugned Act of 1954 was valid.
It appears that 487 persons moved the Assam High Court by writ petitions under Art.
The impugned Act came into force on April 15, 1961, and imposed a tax on manufactured tea and jute carried by any means other than railway and airways.
tional.
226 of the Constitution impeaching the validity of the Act.
The two learned Judges who companystituted the Division Bench have delivered companycurring judgments and held that,, the Act is invalid.
These writ petitions were companysidered.by a Division Bench of the said High Court and they were allowed on the 1st August, 1963.
The Judgment of P.B. Gajendragadkar, N. Wanchoo, K.C. Das Gupta and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar JJ.
The said judgment was pronounced by the High Court on the 6th of June, 1955.
December 13, 1963.
10 of 1961 hereinafter called the Act , is a sequel to the decision of this Court in the case of Atiabari Tea Co., Ltd. v. The State of Assam 1 .
GAJENDRAGADKAR J. The present writ petition by which the two petitioners Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd., and M. Sudhir Chandra Guha, Manager of the said Company, seek to challenge the validity of the Assam Taxation On Goods, Carried by Road or on Inland Waterways Act, 1961 No.
ORIGINAL, JURISDICTION Writ Petiton No.
32 of the Constitution.
To this petition have been impleaded three respondents, the State of Assam, the Commissioner of Taxes, the taxing authority appointed under s. 6 of the Act, and the Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri Division.
The validity of the said Act was challenged by the petitioners and certain other producers of tea by filing writ petitions before the Assam High Court.
C. Barua, Advocate General, Assam, M.C. Setalvad, R.B. Datar and Naunit Lal, for the respondents.
The petitioners whose writ petitions had been dismissed, then preferred appeals to this Court by special leave, and they also, moved this Court by writ petitions under Art.
13 of 1954 which had received the assent of the Governor on the 9th April,, 1954.
The respondent had, passed a similar Act No.
or order directing the respondent number to enforce the operative provisions, against them.
K. Niyogi and S.C. Mazumdar, for the petitioners.
134 of 1962.
S. Pathak, A.N. Sinha and B.N. Ghosh, for the interveners.
Petition under Art.
was delivered by Gajendragadkar J. A. K. Sarkar J. delivered a separate Opinion.
These matters were heard by this Court in the case of Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. 1 and by its judgment delivered on the 26th September, 1960, the said impugned Act was struck down as being unconstitutional.
Petitioner No.
It received the assent of the President on the 6th April, 1961.
The petitioners companytend that the operative provisions of the Act are invalid, and so, they pray for issue of an appropriate writ 1 1061 1 S.C.R. 809.
of this Court in the case of Atiabari Tea Co, the present proceedings can be appropriately described as an after math of the said decision.
This position is companyceded by Mr. Mazumdar for the petitioners.
The relevant terms of the Act are, on the whole, substantially similar to the terms of the earlier Act which was struck down, The Act has made certain additional provisions to which we will refer later.
Since the Act has been passed by the Assam Legislature with the previous sanction of the President directly as a result of the decision.
