A. HAJEE ABDUL SHAKOOR AND COMPANY vs STATE OF MADRAS. Supreme Court, 07-05-1964
| Judge | SUBBARAO, K.,HIDAYATULLAH, M.,SHAH, J.C.,DAYAL, RAGHUBAR,MUDHOLKAR, J.R. |
| Parties | A. HAJEE ABDUL SHAKOOR AND COMPANYSTATE OF MADRAS |
| Date | 07 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | Writ Petition (Civil) 201-203 of 1963 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
A. HAJEE ABDUL SHAKOOR AND COMPANY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MADRAS
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
07/05/1964
BENCH:
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR
BENCH:
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR
SUBBARAO, K.
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
SHAH, J.C.
MUDHOLKAR, J.R.
CITATION:
1964 AIR 1729 1964 SCR (8) 217
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1969 SC 147 (19)
D 1972 SC 217 (18)
APL 1974 SC1111 (10)
RF 1974 SC2344 (1)
D 1977 SC 548 (4,6,7)
R 1979 SC 321 (5)
RF 1980 SC1227 (6)
RF 1980 SC1789 (36)
R 1986 SC 63 (36)
RF 1987 SC1885 (8)
F 1987 SC1922 (7,10,12)
RF 1990 SC 820 (15)
F 1992 SC1952 (10)
ACT:
Sales Tax-Distinction between tanned and untanned hides-
Whether s. 2 ultra vires-Act whether discriminatory-Whether
legislature can enact retrospective legislation-Constitution
of India, Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) and (g), 31, 286(2), 301, 304-
Madras General Sales tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, r.
16(2)(ii)-Madras General Sales Tax (Special Provisions) Act,
1963, s. 2.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioners are dealers in skins in the State of Madras.
They purchased raw skins from places both within and outside
the State of Madras, tanned the same and sold them through
their agents in Madras. They were assessed to a certain
amount of sales-tax in accordance with the provisions of the
Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, and r. 16(2)(ii) of the
Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, on
the turnover of hides and skins purchased in the untanned
condition outside the State and tanned within the State with
respect to the assessment years 1955-56. 1956-57 and 1957-
58. The tax was assessed at 3 pies per rupee on the price
of tanned hides and skins for the years 1955-56 and 1956-57
and at the rate of 2 per cent on the turnover for the year
1957-58. The petitioners filed three writ petitions under
Art. 32 of the Constitution in which they contended that 8.
To continue reading
Request your trial