.JINDAL STA!NLESS TTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

120161 JO S.C.R. l

.JINDAL STA!NLESS TTD. & ANR. A v.

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

4 SUPREME Cl)lJRT REPORTS [2016\ 10 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURJ' REPORTS J2016J 10 S.C.R.

JlNDAL STAINLESS IJ'D. v. STATE OF HARYANA 7

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2016] 10 S.C.R.

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A local areas contemplated hy the Act cover the entire State, the diffi:rence hctwee11 the State and 'a local area' practically disappears. (Per R. Ban11111athi, J.)

p. 11 Copy page pinpoint

1111der E11trr 52 . .Ust II pursuant to Automobile is wnmrranted - The A concept of' compensaton· tax was evolved 50 years hack through judicial pronou11ceme11ts - lt has withstood the test of" time and thus, any suhsc>quent judicial pro1101111cement like the instant case should 1101 prejudice the in1ere.1·t o(lhe parties inl'Olved - State Go1•erm11ents should not suffer mJV loss of revenue solely hecause <~/"judicial B i11rerpre1ations and innovation.1· in Automobile case and the cases \'llhsequent lo ii·· Suhject ro passing the muster of .lrt.304(a), e11trv lax let"ied hv the States under Enll} 52. Ust 11 even though termed a.1· rnmpensatory lax docs notfall.fiml o/Art. 301 - ft is not neces.1·m)' tlzal the 111011ey realized hy the levy should he put into a separate Fund or that the lev1• should he proportionate to the expe11dit11re - c There is no har to suhsumption ol the reve1n1e realized ji·om regulatorr!co111pensatorv taxes into the Consolidated Fund of' the Stiltc as thei· are 110 differenrfimn other taxes of a general nature - Mnrem·c1: the quantum of' expenditure incurred in achievi11g the ohjecl hehind a compensatorv le1•v ca11not he inquired into. (Per R. D !Ja111111w1hi, J.) Seventh Schedule Ust fl EntrJ' 52 - Import of goods and customs clearance and the entry of good1· into the local areas - fo.Yah!e event f-feld: The 11vn events are disti11c/ - ]11 the case o/' r:11.1·101n.1· d11t1', the /Uxahle ei·ent is entrv of' good1· i11to the territorv E of Indio .. 1he /a.rnhle e1·ent ullder Em1y 52, List JI is the entrv ol .!!.nods ill to !oral area ./or conswnplioll, use or sale therein - The 1n·o taxahle events are distinct in lavv and there is 110 overlap - Ullder our Constitution, there is no overlapping ill the taxing power J71e Constitution gives indepe11dellt powers o/ taxation to the Unioll F and the Siates - The /axing power of' the Ullion and of' the States ill'!' mutually e.Yclusive · This avoid1· the dilficul1ie.1··which have arisell 1111der other Federal Constitutions. (Per R. Banumathi, .J.) Se1·enth Schedule List JI Enny 52 -- Entrv tax levied In· W1rious States termed as a 'co111pensatorv 1ax' 1vhe1herfa/l.fi)//l of'Art.301 -- G f-leld: EllflY lax ji1/li11p, wit hill the domain ol Entrr 52, List 11, is a /(fX simplicitcr. even though hy nome11clat11re it is termed as a ·compenrn1orv tax· - Suhiect to passing the muster of Art. 304(a), enn:r lax levied hv the States under Emrv 52, List JI even though lel"lned as C!il11pell.1·otm:i- tax does not fall.fi)U/ of' Art. 301. (Per H

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20161 JO S.C.R.

JINDAL STAINLESS !TD. v. STATE OF 1-IARYANA 13 e.rploin rhe main op1n1rin.'.; /Jar! of rhc .·lrticle -- Jr is never used or ifllcrprctcrl as expanding rlre operative part of" the provision. (Per .Y r-: /? m nwru. .!. !

.J11diciol Rei·iew·

Unjust f'nrid11nenl The co11cep1 o( u11j11sl enric/r111c11r is applicahlc fiJr considering rhe 11uestio11 of refimd ( l11les.1· rhe assessees estahlish 1hat ther iwn' nor pusscd 1111 1he rax lmrden lo rhc cn11.rn1ne1"s, they ca111101 11/ukc a clai111 .for refinul and 1111j111·1h enrich 1/remselves. (Per I?. Hu1111111mlri. .!) fl>im/.1· and Plrrmes:

"!Ji.1crimination' and 'difli'rel7liotion · - Distinction herii:een. u'i.1·1·11.1·sul. I fJeT" J: S. riwk.111; C:IJ /or himself' and.tin· A.K.Sikri and . I. M. l\ha1111·ilkar; .!.!.)

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

Formal and s11bstanti1•e equality - Art.3114(a) comprehemis both formal and substantive notiom of equality - Formal equality 'rvould be met when the same rare of tax is prescribed fur goods imported from other Stales as is levied 011 goods produced cmd H

JINDAL STATNLESS !TD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 15

11w11uf{1ctured 1rithin Suhstantive equality recognises the needfiJr A the develop111c111 of 1111derde1·eloped areas ol the cou11trv - A ha lance lws lo lw slmck he tween rite rn11eer11s ol hothfiJr111al and s11hs1antive equalitr. (!'er D1: JJ. Y Chamlrachud, J) Direct a11d immediale effecl lest - The States and the Union in the exercise o( their legislative pmrers, utilise taxation no/ onlv as B o means of raising rc1·e1111es to support their developmental activities h111 also as ll lll('llSllr!' or achieving social o/Jjecls - Whether the p11rsuil of 1ho1·c social ohiects or the pursuit o( social regulation in/ring.es 11po11 the area oj"ji-ee trade and commerce cannot he decided a priori - The pmrer o/ taxation is capoble ol heing used ill C a manner which can constitute, ill a given case, a restraint or impediment on the freedom ol trade and commerce - Jn determining as to when taxes can constitl//e a restriction on the fi"eedo111 ol !rade ond commerce, !he direct and immediate eflect test (as refined s11hse11ue11tlr) pro1·ides a judicially manageable ji-mnework - The tes/ of direc/ and immediate effect was enunciated in the judgments in i\liabari and ;\ulomobik Trnnsport - The test isfirmlv entrenched as a par/ of our j11rispmdence. (Per D1: D. }'. Chamlrachud, J.) Art.301 J,evr of a 11on-discri111i11a101y tax 1nay constitute infi·uction of"Art.301 if ii impedes the fi"eedom u/ trade, commerce and intercourse A II taxes ll'hich contain restrictions to trade, commerce and intercourse. discriminator)' or non-discriminatory infi·in,c,e Arr.301 unless they are saved u!Arts.302 to 304 - Jn the event, the s11hmission is accep!ed that all taxes are outside Part Xlll except nm1-discrimina1on' taxes as pe11nitted u/Art.304(a}, the same ivill lead 10 giving righl ro the Parliament and State f,egisla!ure to pass f(1ciall.v 11011-discriminatmy lcrws but creating restrictions on trade and comnwrr·e hv other means hy providing arhitrary procedure and various other kind ol restraints - The taxation which can impede the trade. co111111erce and intercourse thus cannot he nmfined 011/r to 11011-di.1·1Tilni11aton· taxation. (Per Asl10k Bhushan, G Ji .frrs 304(aJ and (h) - ls the Emrv Tax levied hy the States in the presem hatch of" cases violative of Arr.301 and in particular hm•e the i111p11gned State enac/rnents relating to ent1y tax to he tested irirh re/in·11ce to hoth Arts.304(a) and 304(h) for determining their H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

Raja .Jagannath Baksh Singh v. State of UP & Am: G 1963 SCR 220 : AlR 1962 SC 1563; Dena Bank v. Bhikhahhai Prahlmdas Parekh & Co. 2000 (3) SCR 509 : (2000) 5 SCC 694; Income Tax. Udiapur, Rajasthan v. MCdowel! and Co. Ltd. 2009 (8) SCR 983 : (2009) 10 SCC 755: State of West Bengal v. Kesoram H lR SUPREME COT JRT REPORTS 12016J 10 S.C.R.

A Industries Ud. 2004 (1) SCR 564 : (2004) 10 SCC 201; State of Kera/a and ors. v. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. and Am: 2012 (4) SCR 448 : (2012) 7 SCC 106 - relied on. Ta:w1io11 - ViJlu111e 1 (4'" Edition) Chapter 2 by Cooley 13 -- re fer red to.

1.2 Exercise of sovereign power is, however, sub,ject to Constitntional limitations especially in a federal system like ours where the States also to the extent permissible exercise the power c to make laws including laws that levy taxes, duties and fees. The powe1- to levy taxes, being a sovereign power controlled only by the Constitution, any limitation on that power must be express. fParas 20, 2811184-D; 188-R-Ff

D Svnthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. v. State of U.P and Ors. 1989 (l) Suppl. SCR 623 : (1990) 1 SCC 109 - relied on. Mis. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Ors. v. State of E Bihar and Ors. 1983 (3) SCR 130: (1983) 4 SCC 45; Maharaj Umeg Singh v. State of Bombay 1955 SCR 164 : AIR 1955 SC 540; Firm Bansidhar Premsukhdas v. State of Rajasthan 1966 Suppl. SCR 81 : AIR 1967 SC 40 - affirmed. F

1.3 Before commencement of the Constitution nearly 2/3"0 of the country was rnled by the British while the remaining 1/3"" was ruled by the Princes also known as native States that enjoyed varying degrees of sovereignty over their respective territories. G These rulers had the power to impose taxes and to regulate the flow of trade, commerce and intercourse. Some of them had erected trade barriers thereby impeding free flow of trade, commerce and intercourse. With the merger of these Princely States into the dominion of India to constitute one single political 1-1 entity, that part of the country that was ruled by the British came

JINDAi. STAJNLESS !TD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 19 to be known as Part A State while the native States became Part A I~ States. Even after the merger of these States, the Constitution had to acknowledge the existence of trade barriers and make transitional provisions with a view to eventually abolishing the same. It was in that background that the Constitution by Article 301 provided for the abolition of all such trade barriers consequent B upon the entire geographical boundaries of .India being knit into one political unit. IP;ua 4411209-G-II; 210-A-C]

S. R. Bmnmai v. Union offndia 1994 (2) SCR 644 : 1994 (3) SCC I; Re: Under Article 143. Constitution olfndia C (5/x'cia! Reference No. 1 of 1964) 1965 SCR 413 : AlR 1965 SC 745; M.P V S1111derara111ier v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1958 SCR 1422 : AIR 1958 SC 468 -- relied on. D

Constitutional validity of Compensatory Tax theory prnpoundcd by ma.iority judgment in Automobile Transport case. 1.4 Compensatory taxes would fall outside Part XIII of the Constitution only if tax payers receive benefits and facilities E commensurate to the levy. Any and every benefit howsoever remote or distant, would not save the levy from an attack on the ground of violation of Article 301. Three distinct aspects touching the question whether the Compensatory Tax Theory is indeed sustainable arc: Firstly, the concept of compensatory taxes is not recognised by the Constitution. A tax is a compulsory exaction of money for general public good. If taxes are eventually meant to serve larger public good and for running the governmental machinery and providing to the people the facilities essential for civilized living, there is no question of a tax being non- compensatory in character in the broader sense. Secondly, G because the concept of compensatory tax. obliterates the distinction between a tax and a fee. The essential difference between a tax and a fee is that while a tax has no element of quid prfl quo, a fee without that element cannot be validly levied. Thirdly, and lastly, the concept of Compensatory taxes being outside Part l-1

20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] IO S.C.R.

A XUI, is difficult to apply in actual practice. Most of the legislations enacted by the States in these cases have described the entry tax levied under the same to be compensatory in character. This may have been done to take the levy outside the mischief of .\rticle 301 of the Constitution. The question, however, is whether tax amount collected in terms of the said legislation is really used by the State for the purpose of providing or maintaining services and benefits to the tax payers and whether the Courts can follow the money trail to determine whether the State concerned has actually used the amount for the avowed purpose underlying the legislation. This prncess is fraught with serious difficulties. Actual (' application of the Compensatory Tax Theory, therefore, runs into difficulties to an extent that the theory at some stage breaks down. The Compensatory Tax Theory was legally unsupportable and deserved to be abandoned. [Paras 63, 64 and 65)[238-E; 239-B; 240-F-G; 241-C-Ei D

Co111111issirme1: Hindu Religious Endoivments, Madras \'. Sri !.aksh111indra Thirtlw Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt 1954 SCR 1005 : AIR 1954 SC 282; Mahant Sri Ja,c,annalh Rama1111j Das & Am: v. Stale of Orissa & E ilm: 1954 SCR 1046: AIR 1954 SC 400; 77ie Hingir- Ramp11r Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1961 SCR 537 : AIR 1961 SC 459; Co1poratio11 of Calcutta and am: 1: !Jher1_1' Cinema 1965 SCR 477 : AIR 1965 SC 1107; Kewal Krishna Puri and Am: v. State of Punjah 197'> (3) SCR 1217: (1980) I SCC 416; Krishi Upaj Mandi

Samili and Ors. v. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. 1994

(5) Suppl. SCR 392 : (1995) 1 SCC 655; Stare of Gujarat and Anr. v. Akhil Gujarat Pravasi V.S. Mahamendal 2004 (3) SCR 956 : (2004) 5 SCC 155; Stale of' Wes/ Bengal v. Kesoram industries Ltd & Ors. (I 2004 (1) SCR 564 : (2004) 10 SCC 201 - referred to. l71e /,m1· of foxarion by Thomas M Cooley; The Major /,aw Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar - Vol. 6 - 4'h Edition - Page Nos.6678 and 6679; Blackwell on Tax llrles as cited in 'Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State H

JTNDAL STAJNLFSS LJ'D. v. STATE OF J-IARYANA 21 of Bihar, AIR 1991 Patna 75, 81; Black'.\' Law A Dictionmy, 7'" Edn., P. 1469; Seervai '.I' hook (Vol. 3, Page 2607) -· referred to.

J .5. l A plain reading of Article 301 would show that freedom B of trade, commerce and intercourse is by no means absolute, the same being subject to the other provisions of Part XIII of the Constitution. Amongst those provisions arc Articles 302, 303 and 304 which have a direct bearing on the nature and the extent of restrictions snhjcc.t to which only is the right to freedom of trade, commerce ancl intercourse referred to in Article 301 C exercisable. Reading Articles 301 and 302 together, it is evident, that freedom of trndc, commerce and intercourse is subject to restrictions which Parliament may hy law impose in public interest. The absolute character of the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse is flrns lost by reason of Article 302 itself empowcl"ing D Parliament to impose such restrictions as it may consider necessary in public interest. Article 303, in turn, places restrictions on the legislative powers of the Parliament and of the States. A careful reading of Article 303 would show that not withstanding the power vested in the Parliament under Article 302, it shall not make any law giving, or authorising the giving of any preference to one State over another, or making, or authorising the making of, any discrimination between one State and another, by virtue of any entry relating to trade and commerce in any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule. A conjoint reading of Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 303 would thus make it clear that while Parliament/ Legislature of a State shall have no power to make a law imposing restriction on trade, commerce and intercourse, by giving or authorizing the giving of any preference to one State over the other, such limitation on the legislative power of Parliament shall not extend to giving of any preference or making or authorizing any discrimination if it is declared by law that a situation has arisen out of scarcity of goods that makes it necessary to do so. In other words, while the Parliament may impose restrictions in public interest under Article 302, the restriction so imposed shall not be in the nature of giving J-1

22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A preference or discrimination between one State or the other except when the law declares that scarcity of goods in any part of India necessitates such preference or discrimination. [Paras 66, 68][242-B-C, F; 243-D-ll; 244-A-BI I.5.2 Article 304 starts with a "no11-obsta11te" clause. Article B 304(a) far from treating taxes as a restriction per se, specifically recognises the State legislature's power to impose the same on g,oods imported from other States or Union Territories. The expression 'may by law impose' is certainly not a restriction on the power to tax. That does not, however, mean that the power c to tax goods imported from other States or Union Territories is unqualified or unrestricted. There are two restrictions on that power. The words "to which similar good.s manufactured or produced in that State are subject" impose the first restriction on the power of the State legislature to levy any such tax. These words would imply that a tax on import of goods from other States D will be justified only if similar goods manufactured or produced in the State are also taxed. The second restriction comes from the expression "so, however, as not to discriminate between goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced". The State legislature cannot in the matter of levying taxes discriminate E between goods imported from other States and those manufactured or produced within the State levying such a tax. The net effect of Article 304(a), therefore, is that while levy of taxes on goods imported from others State and Union territories is clearly recognised as constitutionally permissible, the exercise of such power is subject to the two restrictive conditions. That does not however detract from the proposition that levy of taxes on goods imported from other States is constitutionally permissible so long as the State legislatures abide by the limitations placed on the exercise of that power. [Para 69] 1244- E-F, G-11; 245-A-EJ G 1.6 Question is whether Clauses (a) and (b) have to be read conjunctively. Clauses (a) and (b) of Article 304 deal with two distinct subjects and must, therefore, be understood to be independent of each other. While Clause (a) deals entirely with imposition of H

.JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. '. STATE OF HARYANA 23 taxes on goods imported from other States, Clause (b) deals with imposition of reasonable restriction in public interest. It is trite that levy of a tax in terms of Article 304(a) may or may not be" accompanied by the imposition of any restriction whether reasonable or unreasonable. The use of the word 'and' between clauses (a) and (h) docs not admit of an interpretation that may impose an obligation upon the legislature to necessarily impose a tax and a 1·es!riction together. The law may simply impose a tax without any restriction reasonable or otherwise or it may simply impose a reasonable restriction in public interest without imposing any tax whatsoever. lt may also levy a tax and impose such reasonable restriction as may be considered necessary in public c interest. All the three situations are fully covered and permissible under Article 304 in view of the phraseology used therein. The word 'and' can mean 'or' as well as 'and' depending upon the context in which the law enacted by the legislature uses the same. Levy of taxes do not constitute a restriction under Part XHI except D in cases where the same are discriminatory in nature. Once Article 304 (a) is understood in that fashion, Clause (b) dealing with reasonable restrictions must necessarily apply to restrictions other than those b~' way of taxes. It follows that for levy of taxes prior Presidential sanction in terms of the proviso under Article E 304(h) will be wholly unnecessary. This view is reinforced on the plain language of proviso to Article 304(b), which is limited lo law relating to reasonable restrictions referred to in clause (b). [Paras 70, 711[245-F-G; 246-C-HJ

2. An interpretation that makes the textual match the contextual meaning of the provision is preferred by Courts over one that prefers one at the cost of the other. The question is whether the textual interpretation placed on Articles 301 to 304 matches the contextual. The contextual interpretation of Part XIII must, out of necessity, start with the historical perspective of that Part. Part XIJI had a historical precursor in the form of G Section 297 of the Government of India Act, 1935 that governed what was then called the British India comprising the territory of India subject to British Rule. The rest of the territories were at that time Princely States who claimed sovereign rights within th~ limitations imposed by the paramount power. The power to levy H

24 SUPREMF COURT RFPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A taxes was one such power wielded by the Princely States which led to erection of customs barriers impeding the flow of trade, commerce and intercourse. Section 297 aimed at removing such trade harriers. It provided for a prohibition against enactment of any law or taking of any executive action by the provincial legislature that restricted the entry into or export from the B province goods of any class or description. More importantly, in terms of clause (b) of Section 297(1) of Government of India Act, 1935, no provincial legislature or Government could impose any tax, ccss, toll or due which discriminated between goods manufactured or produced in the provinces and goods not so c manufactm·ed or produced or between goods manufactured or produced outside the province discriminated between goods manufactured or produced in one locality and similar goods manufaclu1·cd or produced in another locality. With India attaining its freedom, Part XIII of the Constitution adopted by it, was aimed J) at bl"inging about economic unity. The object underlying Part XIII was to make movement and exchange of goods free throughout the territory of India. This was achieved by Article 301 to Article 304 adopting substantially the scheme underlying the 1935 Ad. The only difference between the said provisions and Section 297 of the 1935 Act was that the principles enunciated in the latter were extended to the Union Government and the Union Parliament and to the territory which had after merger become a 1rnrt of India. The essence of the freedom of trade commc1·cc and intercourse as recognized in the 1935 Aet and in the Constitution under Part XIU remained the same. !Paras 73, F 76 and 77][248-C; 249-B-ll; 250-A-B)

Reserve Bank o(Jndia \'. Peerless General Finance and lnvestmrnt Co. /Jd. 1987 (2) SCR 1 : (1987) 1 SCC 424 - relied on. Constit11rio11al Lmv ol lndia ( 4"' Edition) by H.M. Secrvai - referred to.

3.1 Legislative competence of the State legislatures can H

JlNDAL STAINLESS r:rD. v. STATE or HARYANA 25 be circumscribed only by exp1·ess provisions or the Constitution A and unless lhei-e is an express limitation on the plenary taxing power of the States. there is no other feHcr on the exercise of n1al power. Applyint: this principle to the case at hand, there is no specific limitation on the State's power to levy taxes on the import of goods from other States except the one referred to in B Article 304(a) of the Constitution. That limitation is confined lo levy of disc.-iminatory taxes within the comprehension of Article 304(a). The power to levy a tax in terms of A.rticles 245 and 246 read with Entry 52 of list ll not being in dispnte in the cases at hand, the absence of any specific limitation forbidding the exercise of such power whether for the sake of free trade, commerce and c intercourse or otherwise simply means that the State legislatures arc free to levy taxes that arc non-discriminatory in nature. [Paras 79, 80]!251-D-G] 3.2 The provisions of our Constitution are aimed at vesting and maintaining with the States substantial and significant powers in the kgislalivc and cxccntive fields so that Slates enjoy their share of autonomy and sovereignty in their sphere of governance. This e1n in turn be done by interpreting the prnvisions of the Constitution including those found in Part XIII in a manner that preserves and promotes the federal set-up instead of diluting or undermining the same. An approach which tends to dilute the federal characte1· of our Constitutional scheme must·. therefore, he avoided and one that supports and promotes the concept of federalism preferred hy the courts while interpreting the provisions of the Constitution. Taxing power of the Union and the States arc mutually exclusive. While the Parliament cannot kgislatc on the subjects reserved for the States, the States cannot similarly trespass onto the taxing powers of the Union. If the Constitutional scheme docs not allow the Parliament to us111·p the taxing powers of the State Lcgislatun:s, such process of usurpation cannot also be permilled to take place in the garb of Ci making Union executive's concurrence an essential p1·c-rcquisitc for an~· taxing lq!i~latinn. [Paras 81. 83 and 841 1252-B-C; 254-E, C-H: 2:'i5-AI

;\./1» lnremutio110/ fo11rist Corpom1i1m & ors. v. Sww H

26 SUPREME COUR!' REPORTS [2016] IO S.C.R.

A of Harvana a11d Ors. 1981 (2) SCR 364: (1981) 2 SCC 318; ITC Umited ''· ilgricultuml Produce Market Co1111nittce and Ors. 2002 (1) SCR 441 : (2002) 9 SCC 232 ·- relied on. Constirutirm Assemblv Debates (Vol. IX Page 1131) - B rcfen-ed to.

3.3 The expression 'subject to other provisions of this Part' appearing in Article 301 and the non-obstante clause appearing in Article 304 do not traverse in different directions. There is no c conllict in the two provisions on account of the use of the said expressions. Interpreted individnally or conjointly, the two expressions simply mean that Article 304 takes precedence over Article 301. [Para 9111260-F-Gl 3.4 It is fairly well settled by now that Courts show I) considerable deference to the legislature in the matter of quantum of tax that may be levied as also the subjects and individuals upon whom the same may be levied. .Just because room for challenge to a fiscal statute is limited is no reason to hold that levy of taxes otherwise within the competence of the legislature E imposing the same should be seen as a restriction on free trade and commerce guaranteed under Article 301 which Article does not either textually or contextually recogn'ize levy of taxes as impediments except in cases where the same are discriminatory in nature thereby being offensive to Article 304 (a) of the F Constitution. [Para 9611264-C-E]

Ramjilal v. IT7come fox Officer, Mohindargarh 1951 SCR 127: AIR 1951 SC 97: Kunnathat Thathu11ni Moopi/ Nair v. 17ze State of' Kera/a & Anr. 1961 SCR G 77: AIR 1961 SC 552; Laxmanappa Hanumantappa Jomkhandi v Union of India AIR 1955 SC 3 - relied on. 1\!l/1-. Bhugatrnm Rajee1' Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP and Ors. 1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 91 : l-l

JINDAL STAINLESS ITD. v. STATE OF IIARYANA 27

1995 Suppl. (l) SCC 673; State of Bihar and Ors. v. A Rihar Cham her of Commerce and Ors. 1996 (2) SCR 184 : (1996) 9 SCC 136; Jindal Stripe !JJ. and Am: v. State of Hwyana and Ors. 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 154 : (2003) 8 sec 60: Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. State of /\i!adhya Pradesh and Ors. 2008 (17) SCR 1282 : B (2009) 7 sec 339; Jindal Stainless Limited and Am: v. Stale off-Jarrana and Ors.2010 (4) SCR 743: (2010) 4 SCC 595; Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1965 SCR 908: AlR 1965 SC 1636; GK. Krishnan v. State of fomil Nadu 1975 (2) SCR 715 : (1975) 1 SCC 375; Kihoto Hollo/um v. Zachillhu 1992 (1) SCR 686 : (1992) c Supp 2 SCC 651; Tlv!A. Pai Foundation and others 1-: Stale of Karnataka 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 : (2002) 8 SCC 481; Chi el.Justice of Andhra Pradesh and others. v. L V A. Dixi111/11 and others 1979 (1) SCR 26 : (1979) 2 SCC 34; Ke.rn\'Gnanda Bharati v. State ol Kera/a D 1973 Suppl. SCR 1 : (1973) 4 SCC 225; Ku/deep Nair v. Union of India and Ors. 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 1 : (2006) 7 SCC l; Smt. U1)a111 Bai " State of Uttar Pradesh 1963 SCR 778: AlR 1962 SC 1621 - referred to. E

3.5 The ''direct and immediate" effect test evolved by the pronouncement of the Australian High Court has itself been watered down and diluted. The current view in Australia is that only such taxes as are discriminatory introduced by way of a protectionist measure operate as restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. !Para 102]1268-B-Ci

.James r. Cmmnmni:ealth o(Ausrralia (1936) A.C. 578; (.! Cmmnomi:eallh of /1 l!Stralia and others F. Bank of Nnv South I-Vales m1d others 119501 A.C. 235; Co111mrm11'calth ol Australia and Ors. v. Bank ol New South Wales and Ors. [1950] A.C. 235; McCulloch v. Marv/and, 17 US 316 (1819) - referred to. H

28 SUPRRME COURT FF!'ORTS [20l6l l0 S.C.R.

;\ " I freatise 011 the Co11stit11/io11al J,imitation.1·" (8'" Edn. 1927 Vol. II Page 986) by Thomas M Cooley referred to.

3.6 Simpl,v because the tax is high is no reason for it to Il change its character and take the form of a restriction within the meaning •tf Part XI 11, no matter any one aggrieved of such heavy burden shall have the liberty to assail the same on all such grounds a' may be available to him under Part Ill of the Constitution. !Para 1l6J J278-BJ St{{/e o/ lvf{{dru.1· '" J\'. K. i\'{{/{{raja Mudalior l 968 SCR 829 : A IR 1%9 SC 147 - relied on. Rojo .Joganno!h Hoksh Singh v. Stale of' UP 1963 SC R 220 : A I H. l 962 SC 1563; Federa1io11 o( Hotel & I) Rc.1·taura11/ .·l.\·sn. of Indio etc. 1·. U11io11 ol l11dia & Ors. 198'l (2) scR 918: (1989) 3 sec 634; Y v Sri11i1·asa11111rtln· and ors. 1·. Stoic of' 1'vlrsore and /lm: AIR 1959 SC 894; 0 G Gose & Co. (Agents) (P! Ltd v. Stole of Kera/a {//Id am: 1980 (I) SCR 804 : (1980) 2 SCC 410; A S11resh and olilt'rs 1·. State o/11V and another I' 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 947: (1997) l SCC 319- referred to.

4.1 Whether the use of the expression "by virtue of any entry 1·clating to trade and commc1·cc" appearing in Article 303 arc wide enough to include entries relating to lev:v of taxes also. The entries relating to Trade and Commerce by themselves are no! snfficicnl to cmpowc1· till' legislature lo levy taxes. The constitutional scheme is such that a taxing entry is distinct from (i other entries and a levy of tax is possible on!~· if there is an entry which authorises lhP cornpcknt legislature to levy the same. :\rticle 303 is an exception lo Article 302, inasmuch as it limits the po\\ er conceded to the Parliament under Article 302 to impose restrictions on freedom of Trade, Commerce and Intercourse in public interest. The power exercised by Article 302 cannot be II

JJNDAL STAINLESS !TD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 29 so exercised as to give preference to one state over another A except under a situation covered by Article 303(2) namely situation arising from scarcity of goods in any part of the territory of India. !Paras 117-11911278-E, G-H; 279-A; 280-E-F]

B M. P V Sunderammier \·'. State of Andhra Pradesh 1958 SCR 1422 : AlR 1958 SC 468 - relied on.

4.2 Whether the levy of entry tax on import of goods from outside the local area i11 the State will be per sc discriminatory if goods so imported or similar arc not produced or manufactured within the State. 1\t-ticlr 304(a) strikes at discriminatory taxation implying thereby that the levy falls unequally as between goods produced or manufactured within the State and those being imported from outside. The essence of the guarantee in Article 304(a) lies in the same or similar goods being treated similarly in the matter of taxation. The question, therefore, is whether that guarantee is violated if the goods .rnbjected to levy of ei1try tax arc not produced or manufactured within the State levying the tax.Answer E is in the negative. This is because there is no question of any discrimination if goods from outside the State are not at a disadvantage vis-a-vis goods produced or manufactured within that State. His true that a levy on goods that arc not produced or manufactured in the State is likely to make such goods costlier but that is not enough for the levy to be considered unconstitutional. A responsive Government aware of the needs of its constituents will be under tremendous pressure to keep such taxes low enough for its constituents to be able to afford the same. Dcmocrat.ic processes and pressures within the system of governance that we have will itself take care of any aberration in this regard. What is absolutely clear, however, is that Article 304(a) will not frown at a levy simply because same or similar goods as are taxed are not produced or manufactured in the State. !Para 1221[282-C-G]

30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

Ka!rani Stores v. State of' Orissa (1966) 1 SCR 865 - held inapplicable.

ll 4.3 The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was enacted pursuant to the Sixth Amendment Act, 1956 whereby taxes on sale and purchase of goods in the course of inter-state trade and commerce were expressly brought within the purview of the legislative competence of Parliament. This included the 1wwcr to impose rcst.-ictions upon the power of the State legislature insofar as c levy of taxes of sale or purchase of goods of special importance is concerned. F:ntry 92-A added by the Sixth .\mendment Act 1956 empowered the Parliament to levy taxes on the sale and purchase of the goods other than newspapers in the course of trade and commerce. Entry 54 of the State List by the same amendment was redrawn to make the taxes on the sale and purchase of goods subject to Entry 92-A of List I. The States' power is made subservient to the powers of the Parliament under Entry 92-A. Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, t.herefore, has overriding effect vis-a-vis any State Law authorizing imposition of taxes on sale/purchase of declared goods. In t.his perspective, Parliament has limited the legislative power of the Stat.c insofar as taxes on declared goods arc concerned. The imposition of restrictions on the State's power of taxation in regard to declared goods is not suggestive of taxes themselves being restrictions for purposes of Part XIII oft he Constitution. Not only that, Article 286(3) provides the source of power for the Parliament to impose any restriction on the State authority t.o leV)' a tax on goods of special importance declared by Parliament. A non-discriminatory tax does not per se constitute a rest1·iction on the right to free trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed under Article 301. (i !Paras 124-12611283-D-J•'; 284-A-C; 285-A-B]

Atiuhari Tea Co. Ltd. \'. Srare of'Assam & Ors. 1961 SCH 809 : Am 1961 SC 232; Automohile 1/'a11.1porf (Rajasrhan; Lrd. ere. v. Swre of' Rajastlwn & Ors.1963 II

JlNDAI. STAINl .FSS lTD. v. STATF OF HARYANA 31

SC R 491 : A IR 1962 SC 1406; Jindal Swinless Ltd A ( J) and ,.Jnr. 1·. Swre ol Harvana and Ors. 2006 (3) SCR 1095: (2006) 7 SCC 241 - overruled.

5.1 ls the Entry Tax levied by the States in the present B hatch of cases yiolativc of Article 301 of the Constitution and in particular have the impugned State enactments relating to entry tax lo be tested with reference to both Articles 304(a) and 304(b) of the Con.~titution for determining their validity? The restrictions referred to in Article 304(b) arc non-fiscal in nature. Constitutional validity of any taxing statute has, c therefore, to he tested only on the anvil of Article 304(a) and if the law is found to be non-discriminatory, it can be declared to be constitutionally valid without the legislation having to go through I.he test or the process envisaged by Article 304(b ). Should, however, the statute fail the test of non-discrimination under D Article 304(a) it must he struck down for the same cannot be sustained even if it had gone through the process stipulated by Article 304(b). That is because what is constitutionally impermissible in terms of Article 304(a) cannot be validated and sanctioned through the medium of Article 304(b). A fiscal statute E shall be open to challenge only under Article 304(a) of the Constitution without being subjected to the test of Article 304(b) either in terms of the existence of public interest or rcasonah!rness of the lcv~·. !Para 12911174-C; 285-F-II; 286-A- BJ Video t.'lectronics v. State of Punjab 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 731 : (1990) 3 SCC 87 - affirmed.

5.2 The Court ought to examine whether the differentiation made is intended or inspired by an element of unfavourable bias G in favour of the good~ produced or manufactured in the State as against those impor1ecl from outside. Sn long as the differentiation made b~· the States is not intended lo create an unfavourable bias and so long as the differentiation is intended to benefit a distinct H

32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A class of industries and the life of the benefit is limited in terms of period, the benefit must be held to flow from a legitimate desire to promote industries within its territory. Grant of exemptions and incentives in such cases must be deemed to have been inspired by considerations which in the larger context help achieve the Constitutional goal of economic unity. !Pam 133] [289- B D; 290-C-DI

Shree Mahavir Oil Mills and Anr. v. Stale of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 39 - distinguished. Kathi Raninp, Rawat l'. The State of Saurashtra 1952 SCR 435: AJR 1952 SC 123 - affirmed. Mk Bhagatram Rajeev Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP. and Ors. 1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 91 : 1995 Suppl. (1) sec 673; State of Bihar and Ors. V. D Bihar Chamber of Commerce and Ors. 1996 (2) SCR 184 : (1996) 9 sec 136; Ji11dal Stripe Ltd and Am: V. State of' Hwyana and Ors. 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 154 : (2003) 8 SCC 60; Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. Stale of Madhva Pradesh and Ors. 2008 (17) SCR 1282 : E (2009) 7 SCC 339; Jindal Stainless Limited and Am: v. State of Harvana and Ors. 2010 (4) SCR 743: (2010) 4 SCC 595; [<eshav ivlil!.1· Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1965 SCR 908 : AIR 1965 SC 1636: GK Krishnan v. State of fomil Nadu 1975 (2) SCR 715 : (1975) 1 SCC 375; F Kihoto Hollo/um v. Zachi/lhu 1992 (1) SCR 686 : (1992) Sup1>l. 2 SCC 651; TM.Ii. Pai Foundation and others l'. State ofKamataka 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 : (2002) 8 SCC 481; Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and others. v. L. V. A. Dixitulu a11d others 1979 (1) SCR 26 : (1979) 2 SCC 34; Kesavananda Blwrati v. State of Kera/a 1973 Suppl. SCR l : (1973) 4 SCC 225; Ku/deep Nair v. Union ojlndia and Ors. 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 1 : (2006) 7 SCC l; S1111. Ui/am Bai v. Stale uf U1tar Pradesh 1963 SCR 778 : AIR 1962 SC 1621 - referred to. H

.JJNDAL STAINLESS LTD. \'. STATE or HARYANA 33

5.3 Courts have almost universally accepted the principle that keeping in view the inherent complexities of fiscal adjustments and the diverse elements and inputs that go into such exercise a greater latitude is due to the legislature in taxation ·related legislations. So long as the intention behind the grant of exemption/adjustment/credit is to equalize the fall of the fiscal burden on the goods from within the State and those from outside the State such exemption or set off will not amount to hostile rliscrirninati.on offensive to Article 304(a). Whether the impugned enactment achieve the object of such equalization or lead to a sit nation that exposes goods from outside the state to suffer any disadvantage vis-a-vis those produced or manufactured in the c taxing State is left open for examination by the regular benches hearing the matters. !Paras 137, 1411[291-G; 297-E]

Ma/i1tlal i: Union of India 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 585: D l 997 (5) SCC 536; Khandige Sham Bhat v. Agrl. /JV 1963 SCR 809 : AIR 1963 SC 591; V Gun1viah Naidu and Sons and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.1977 (1) SCR 1065 : (1977) 1 SCC 234; Malwa /3111· Se111ice (Private) Ltd. v. State of P.unjah and Others 1983 (2) SCR 1009: (1983) 3 SCC 237; Maharaj E Umeg Singh v. State of !3omhav, 1955 SCR I 64 : AIR 1955 SC 540 - referred to. Cole v. Whitfield (1988) 165 CLR 360 - referred to.

F PER S. A. BOBDE, .J. (Concurring) Taxes arc not restrictions on Trade.

1. Tax is predicated on freedom of trade and commerce. It is pa1·ticularly true of entry tax. Entry tax is an impost levied on G transactions which are entered into in the course of that freedom. In fact, but for such freedom of trade, there would be no transaction and no occasion for the levy of a tax. The levy of a tax is a distinct event from the transaction. Trade and commerce must take place to attract a tax. Undoubtedly a tax may make H

34 SUPREME C()LJRT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

/\ the transacHon less profitable to the extent of the tax. Bnt that is rar from being an impediment on the transaction which is part of trade, the freedom which is guaranteed under Article 301. It is not possible to readily conceive of a tax, which in itself, restricts or impedes the freedom of trade. !Para 2] [298-C-D]

2. Article 304(a). The levy of entry tax on import of goods from outside the local area in the State will be per se discriminatory if goods similar to those imported are not produced or manufactm·ed within the State. Article 304 recognizes the power of a Legislature to a State c to impose the tax on the imported goods so, however, as not to discdminatc between goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced. The Article imposes two conditions: firstly. that a law may impose a tax on goods imported from other States, "any tax' to which "similar goods manufactured or I) produced' in that Stale are subject. This clearly implies that the goods imported from other States may be subjected to a tax where simib1r goods a1·c in fact, manufactured or produced in the imporfing State and arc subjected to tax. In other words, (a) the goods imported from other States must be similar to (b) the goods manufactured or produced in the importing State and (c) the goods so locally manufactured or produced must be subject to tax. The second condition is the tax that is imposed on imported goods should not discriminate between the imported goods and goods manufactured or produced in the importing State. The intention of the Article thus, clearly is that where a tax exists on goods impot"ted into a State, there should be no discrimination between such a tax and a tax on similar goods manufactured or produced in the importing State. The reference point for tax on imported goods is the tax on locally manufactured goods. It is not possible to construe the prohibition against discrimination where there is no tax upon similar goods manufactured or produced in the G importing State. Undoubtedly, the effect of such a construction is that the imported goods cannot be taxed where similar goods are not manufactured or produced in the importing State and arc therefo1·e, not subjected to similar tax and that seems to be the clear· intention of this Article. !Paras 4, 6 and 711299-C; 300-D- H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STA.TE OF HARYA.NA. 3)

II; 301-A-BI A

3. Jn the normal course, a State in which certain goods arc not manufactured would rely on the supply of such goods from other States and the effect of this provision would he to make the goods so imported available without the additional burden of tax. In sum, the premise on which lax can be imposed is the existence B of no! mere taxes on goods produced or manufactured locally, or the thcon:tical possibility of taxation, to avoid the prohibition under Article 304 (a), hut the actual production or manufacture of similar goods, that are subject to like or similar tax. Absent this condition, the levy would fall foul of Article 304 (a) since it c would constitute an additional burden (the goods already having suffered some form of taxation in the producing state). This interpretation would also further economic progress and the unhindered availahili!y of goods in states which do not have manufacturing capacities and may not be able to develop it, having regard to lack of natural resources or other geographical D limitations. I! also furthers the aims underlying Article 301 of the Constitution of India. (Para 8]1301-C-F] f1riahari ](,a Co. Ud.Stall' of'Assam & Ors. 1961 1: E SCR 809 : AIR 1961 SC 232 - referred to. McC11lloch v. Mwyla11d. 17 lJS 316 (1819) - referred to.

r PER SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, .I. (Concurring) Challenge to various taxing statutes enacted by several States to impose Entry Tax on goods in exercise of specific power available lo the State legislature under· Entry 52 of List II in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. G I. Since, in the matter of levy of taxes the compensatory theory is no more relevant, the State Legislatures are free to ('Xercise their taxing powers without the need of declaring and showing that taxes imposed by them oi1 outside goods arc for the benefit of concerned traders or manufacturers. But such tax must H

SUPREME COURT REPORl'S 12016] I0 S.C.R.

A be, in essence, non-discriminatory, both, in the ultimate tax burden and in machinery provisions. To muster compliance with Part XIII of the Constitution, the lax must pass the twin tests embodied in Article 304(a) - (i) Similar goods produced locally must also be subjected lo similar tax and (ii) such state action should not attract 13 the vice of discrimination between the two varieties of goods. I Para 611303-0-Fl

2. The entire discussion leads to a fair conclusion that the views summarized by Sinha, CJI in paragraph 18 of his judgment in Atiabari case depict the law emanating from Part XIII of the c Constitution in the correct perspective. However same cannot he said of observations in paragraph 16 where His Lordship used the expression - "If a law is passed by the legislature ...... . imposing a high tariff wall----------assumes the character of a trade barrier which it was the intention of the Constitution makers to abolish by Part XUJ." These observations do create practical D difficulties of insurmountable proportions. Hence these deserve to be treated as obiter or interpreted in the light of the entire passage, to mean such taxes which impose an impediment to the free flow of trade, commerce and intercourse by creating discriminatory tariff wall/trade barrier (emphasis supplied). For r' Part Xlll there can be no real impediment through tax unless the so called wall or barrier is one of hostile discrimination between local goods aud outside goods. !Para 711303-G-ll; 304- A-Bl

F Atiahari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam & Ors. 1961 SCR 809 : AIR 1961 SC 232; Auromobi!e Transport (Rajasthan) Ud etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 1963 SCR 491 : AIR 1962 SC 1406 - not good law.

G PER N. V. RAMANA, J. (Concurring) 1.1 It is a settled proposition that generally the construction of the Constitution must be most beneficial and widest possible amplitude. The court must gather from the spirit of the II

.JINDAL STAINLESS !TD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 37

Constitution and 1he language must not be construed in a narrow and pedantic manner. Equally important point is that legislative powers especially taxing powers cannot be tested by implication. Unless there is express limitation on the power of the State to enact the State law, it is not the province of the court to curtail the power of the slate by interpretative process. Every law must he tested with reference to preamble and Directive Principles of State Policy. !Paras 5.2, 5.3]1316-D-E, G; 317-A]

Kesavananda Bharti v. State o( Kera/a 1973 Suppl. SCR l : 1973 (4) SCC 225 · relied on. c RH/ v. Pearle.1·.1· General Finance AIR 1987 SC 1023: 1987 (2) SCR 1: In re CP and Berar Act, 1938, 1939 FCR 18; Aram Prakash v. State of Harvana 1986 (1) SCR 399 : 1986 (2) SCC 249; State o( 11/est Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. 2004 (1), SCR 564 : AIR 2005 D S.C. 1646; Ci. K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu 1975 (2) SCR 715: AIR 1975 S.C 583; RC Cooper v. UOJ, 1970 (3) SCR 530 : (1970) l SCC 248; Madho Rao .Jimii Scimlia l'. Cnion oflndia 1971 (3) SCR 9: (1971) 1 sec 85 - referred to. E Constituent Asscmhly Dehote Vol. IX, September 8, 1949 - referred to.

1.2 In a democratic system, the elected Governments are always responsible for its people. If there is any high taxation which is affecting their life, this puts pressure on the Governments lo reduce taxes and elected Governments are answerable to public every five years. No Government can raise tax which would cause public inconvenience. In this context, Sovereignty is no more endless power, rather it is responsibility. A responsible G government in a democracy should always strive to keep taxes as low as possible, so that no heavy burden is placed on tbe individuals. Although States arc empowered to tax under the Constitution. it does not necessarily mean that they should tax at H

38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016110 S.C.R.

A exorbitant rates. Tax is a way uf apportioning the cost of government among those who in some measure are privileged to enjoy the benefits and must therefore bear its burdens. A tax is a burden or charge imposed by a competent legislature upon persons or property, to raise money for public purposes. Important clements of a tax may be said to be first, that it is a B compulsory exaction; secondly, it is payable to the State or to some public authority on its behalf; and thirdly, that it is an exaction .for purposes of public interest. Our Constitution has demarcated the taxing powers between the Center and States. Taxing power of the Union as well as the States resides in Article 245 read with c 246 of the Constitution. Article 246 of the Constitution, lays down that Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in Union List (List I of schedule VII). The States have complete power to make laws with respect to ~my matter enumerated in the State List (List II of schedule VII)

D and both Parliament and State Legislature have power to make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the Concurrent List (List IU of schedule VU). As per Article 265, no taxes shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law. Taxation entries are to be found only in lists I and II, indicating that in our Constitutional scheme, taxation powers of the Centre and the States are mutually exclusive. There ar·c no Entries in the Concurrent List which gives power of taxation. This being the case, the moment the levy contained in a taxing statute transgresses into a prohibited field, it is liable to be struck down. !Paras 6.1, 6.211324-C-F; 325-A-E) F

Raja .!agannath Baksh Singh v. State of U.P & Am: 1963 SCR 220: AIR 1962 SC 1563; Dena Bank v. Bhikhahhai Prahhudas Parekh & Co. 2000 (3) SCR 509 : (2000) 5 sec 694; c.rr.. Udaipur Rajasthan V. 0 McdoH·e!l & Co. Lrd. 2009 (8) SCR 983 : 2009 (10) sec 755 - referred to. Coole1' on taxation Vol. 1, 4'" ed., Ch.2 - referred to.

JINDAL STATNLESS ITD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 39

2.1 The freedom of tniclc, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India is assured, but such freedom of trade is subject to Part XIII of the Constitution. 'When evaluating the impact of Article 301 on the plenary taxing power of the Sovereign State, the opening words become significant. The dissi;ct.ion of A1·tielc 301 shows that it bas three significant parts or p h rascs. T hcse are, 's ul~iect to other provisions of this part', and 'Trade, Commerce and intercourse throughout territory (}( India', '.~hall befi·ee'. \Vhichever way one r·eads, the plain meaning of this is that trade, commerce and intercourse, shall be free, subject to Articles 302 to 307 of the Constitution. The two sets or the provisions which are mainl:o-· contemplated in the phrase c 'subject to other provisions' are Articles 302, 303 and 304 (a) and (h). The Pl1rliamcnt may by law restrict the freedom of trade in puhlic interest and such law would lJe free from Article 301. Article 301 of the Constitution begins with the phrase 'Subject tn othl'r prnvisions of this Part'. This phrase gins an initial indication as lo what to expect? The position of this phrase should be taken into consideration. Even before the declaration of freedom of Trade, Commerce and Lntercourse, it is being sub.iected to limitations. Further the opening words of Article 301, namely, 'sub.ice! to the provisions of this part' require that all the Articles of the Part XIII have to be read together so as to understand the width and meaning of the Part Xlll. 'Subject to' is the dominant expression so far as Article 301 is concerned. It indicates subservience to at least Articles 302, 303 and 304. Articles 302 to 304 embody a restatement of powers under Article 246 r/w the State List under the VII Schedule. Each restated power by itself overrides the freedom of trade in Article 301. [Paras 7.3-7.511328-D, E-H; 329-A-BI 2.2 A1·ticlc 301 loses its prime place, if States make laws under any of the taxing entries, erecting reasonable restrictions or imposing tax on the free trade. Such power oYer-ridcs freedom of trade and commerce. Thus, the general declaration by Article 301 is relaxed in favor of Parliament by Article 302 and in favor of the States by Articles 303 and 304. Article 304 starts with a 11011-ohstallle clause whereas Article 302 does not have a non- obstanle clause. As the freedom of trade in Article 301 is itself H

40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1.2016] 10 S.C.R.

/\ subjecl to 302 and 304, the intention of the framers appears to be clear. The Constitution guards and protects the State legislations under Arliclc 304(a) and (b) from overemphasized effect on freedom of trade under Article 301.IPara 7.6] 1329-C-DJ

3. It is a sound principle of jurisprudence that entire statute R has to be construed as a whole and not in isolation. While doing so, no clause in any provision can be ignored especially when interpreting the Constitution which is 's11pre111a lex'. The difference between the power of the Union and the States vis-a-vis Article 301 is that Article 302 does not have application to tax laws like Article 304(a), but under Article 304(a), tax can be imposed on the goods imported from other States. From the legislative history and Constituent Assembly Debates, propositions that emerge arc: It is clear from a comparison of Clause 16, 243, 244 and 245 of the draft Constitution with Articles in Part XA (now Part XIII) that they were not merely arranged in seriatim but were substantially altered. That freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse is not a fundamental right. That trade, commerce and intercourse in India is not absolutely free. That the discriminatory tax (like erstwhile custom duties imposed by certain independent states) is harmful for the federation. [Paras 7.7, 7.1711329-E-F; 335-B-EJ

F1111dame11tal Rights by Dr. K. M. Munshi B. Shiva Rao. The Fmming of India :1· Co11stit111ion, Vol. II, p. 69 (1967) (B. Shiva Rao); Sir Alladi Krislmaswami Jye1; r B. Shiva Rao, p.68; Co11stitue111 Assemhlv Dehate, Vol. IX, 8th September 1949 - referred to.

4. The main inspiration for Part XIII has been American and Austrnlian models. These models present before the Constituent Assembly were re-designed and expanded by the framers of the Constitution in India according to the needs of Indians. The interpretation provided by other countries are Just indicative. They may have persuasive value because the context and history has been quite different as compared to India. At f-l

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 41 least in relation to Part XUJ of the Constitution an indigenous interpretation should be provided without placing heavy reliance on the foreign cases as they may be subject to change which will inevitably stir !he matter once again. Moreover, our constitutional ~tructm·e is quite different from those provided under Australian and American Constitutions. ln Australia and the U nitcd States B of America, giving textual meaning to the applicable Constitutional provisions, the Courts interpreted the 'commerce clause' or 'free trade clause' in such a manner that the (federal units) were completely barred lo levy any taxes o·n inter-state trade and commerce. Fortunately off late, in these jurisdictions, the law has been dilutl'd to enable the· federal units to regulate c inter-state trade and commerce even by imposing levies. This would be clear by bi-icf reference lo !he case law governing inter- state trade in Australia, Canada and the United States of America. !Paras 7.19, 7.201[336-B-Ej D

Gold Seal Ud. 1·. Alherta AG (1921) 62 SCR 424 -- referred to. Cole 1·. Whitfield (1988) I 63 CLR 360; Castlemaine foohey.1· Ud v. South A 1.11·tralia ( 1990) 169 CLR 436; E Bct/(1ir Pty Ud v. Western Australia (2008) 234 CLR 418; Common wealth\'. Bank ofrww South H'ltlcs, (1949) 79 CLR 497; Brmvn v. Mw).Zand 25 lJ.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 (1827); i'vicCulloch 4 Wheal. 316 (1819); Freeman 1·. Hc11·irt. 329 U.S. 249 (1946); Comp/Pie Auto fransit

'" Hrndr 430 U.S. 274 (I 977); D.H. Holmes C01npa11v F Lid. 1·. Shirln Mc1Vamara 486 lJ.S. 24 (1988); C11111111om1·ealrh Edison Company '" Srate of lvlontana 453 U.S. 609 (1981) - referred to. Constitutiomt! /,aw of Canada, Peter rV Hogg. Vol.l, pg. 857 referred lo. c;

5. There is no gainsaying that the law made by Parliament or State legislature is subject to Constitutional limitations. A law H

-l2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS j2016j IO S.C.R.

A which abridges fundamental rights is rendered void by reason of Article 13. ;\ law hy the Union or the States relating to a sub.ice! matter outside the powers assigned under Articles 245 read with Article 246 and relevant legislative entries in the Seventh Schedule would be ultra vires as legislatively incompetent. Apart from these limitations, the law of the Union or the States is also subject to other Constitutional limitations. The provisions of Part XIII, especially, Article 304(a) and (b) also act as a limitation on the legislative .i uriscliction of the Union and the States. The power endowed under Articles 245 and Article 246 to a competent legislature to make laws is 'subject to the provisions of the c Constitution'. Nonetheless, if a State makes law under Article 245( 1) read with A1·ticle 246(3) in respect of the subjects enumerated in Entries 45 to 63 of List II in the Seventh Schedule, it is doubtful whether it can be invalidated only on the ground that it does not comply with Articles 301 and 304(a). Indeed D various provisions of the Constitution dealing with fiscal measures in Part XII, for instance Articles 265, 269, 276 and 286, spccilically deal with taxes, but in Part XJJI, except A1·ticle 304(a), no other Article deals with taxes. Further Chapter I of Part XII of the Constitution specifically deals with provisions regarding •Finance', whereas Part XIII deals with ·Tracie, Commerce and r·: Intercourse' within the territory of India. Thus, these two Parts are kept distinctly separate. Though every law is made subject to all provisions of the Constitution, it does not mean that every tax law made by the State must be made answerable to the general provisions relating to trnde, commerce and intercourse. The F JJro,·isions of the Constitution, the Constituent Assembly Debates and the p1·eccdents, lead to such a conclusion.IPara 7.40]1351-F- ll; 352-A-C I Maharaj Umeg Singh and Others v. The State al Bomhar and Others 1955 (2) SCR 164; Khverbari Tea G Company v. State of'Assam (1964) 5 SCR 975 : AIR 1964 SC 925 - referred to. Concise OxfiJrd Dictionarv, p. 474 (10th Ed.) - referred to.

JINDAL STAlNLFSS LTD. v. S IArE OF HARYANA 43

PART-VIII : ARTICLE 304 OF THE CONSTITUTION A 6.1 Whether a law levying tax on cntr~· of goods needs to he test.ed with reference to Article 304(a) and (b) of the Constitution'? In order to appreciate the implication of Article :104 of the Constitution, it is necessary to hear in mind the historical background of these provisions. The Government of B l ndia Act. 1935 envisaged a federal Constitution for the whole of British India. The Government imposed restriction on the legislature of the States to legislate in relation to internal trade 1111de1· Section 297. The prohibition contained in section 297 applied only to I'n>Vincial Governments and Provincial C legislatures with reference to entries in the legislative list relating lo trnde and commerce and to production, supply and distribution of commodities. This section dealt with prohibitions or restrictions in respect of import into or export from a Province, of goods generally. It also dealt with the power lo impose laxes etc. and prohibited discrimination against goods manufactured or produced D outside a Province or goods produced in different localities. The proviso empowered the 'Unit' to impose by Jaw, reasonable restrictions in the interest of the public order, morality or health. !Paras 8.1, 8.2 and 8.4] [354-G-IJ; 355-A, F-G; 356-C] 6.2 Another important question is whether State E enactments relating lo levy of entry tax have to be tested with reference to both clauses (a) and (b) of Article 304 or only with reference to clause (a) of Article 304 of the Constitution'! The history, the context and the plain words indicate that Article 304 (a) and (h) an'. disjunctive in nature. A levy of tax need not be tested with reference lo Article 304 (b) of the Constitution. The n~asons for reading Article 304 (a) and (b) of the Indian Constitution disjunctively arc: First, the legislative history and the intention of the framers clearly point out that taxes were never treated as restrictions in the first place. Secondly, Article 304(a) G docs not bar or limit State power to levy non-discriminatory taxes on the goods imported from other States. What is restricted is levy of discriminatory tax only, so to say, similar goods manufactured or produced in that State are also subjected to tax, so as not to discriminate between the goods imported and goods !-I

44 SUPREME COURT Rf~PORTS 12016110 S.C.R.

A manufactured or produced in the State. Thirdly, the two clauses of Article 304 are connected by the word 'and'. Sub-clause (a) puts a restriction on the State to not impose a discriminatory tax, whereas sub-clause (b) deals with other restrictions relating to trade, commerce and intercourse. Fourthly, Article 304 (a) and (b), on a careful reading would show that Article 304 (a) and (b) B are disjunctive. This is made clear by the proviso, which is to the effect that a Bill for the purpose of Article 304 (b) can be moved by the Legislature of the States, only by the previous sanction of the President. If Clauses (a) and (b) are not disjunctive, then the language of the proviso would have been certainly different and (' the Bill for the purpose for Clause (a) would have been mentioned. Conspicuous absence of reference to 304(a) in the proviso would certainly lend support to the view that Clause (a) and (b) of Article 304 are distinct and dis,junctivc. The proviso, it is well settled, is intended to explain the main operating part of the Article. lt is j) never used or interpreted as expanding the operative part of the provision. Fifthly, if one reads Clauses (a) and (b) of Article 304 conjunctively, then it would not subserve the federal nature of the Constitution which is a basic structure. [Para 8.141 [364-B- ll; 365-A-B]

!' B. Shiva Rao. Fmming of Jndia :\' Constitution, A Study (2"" Ed.), p. 699 to 707; R. Shiva Rao, Fm111ing of India :1· Co11sri111tio11, Vol. Ill, p.9 (2"" Ed.); R. Shiva Rao, Frn111i11g of Jndia '.\· Constitution, Vol. IV, p.329 - I' refetTcd to.

6.3 There is a vital difference between mere 'differentiation' and "discrimination. It is discrimination not differentiation that is sought to he prevented through Part XIII. . The principle laid G down in Video Electronics is that. if a backward area in a State needs impetus for the development, and in such circumstances incentives are given for the industry to develop whether by way of subsidies or tax exemptions for a certain period of time as desi1·ed by the competent legislature, the same would be H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 45 permissible and would fall outside the scope of Article 304 (a). A Such State enactment is not inherently discriminatory, but rather aims to ensure economic equality which is a facet of economic unity. A State law directed towards development of a particular region is permissible under Part XIII. The common thread in Part XII.I is the achievement of economic unity and parity which B does not altogether preclude differentiation for justifiable and rational reasons wherever necessary. The heart and soul of Part XIII is to dissolve hostile discrimination within the territory of India. T!Je second facet is that Article 304 (a) is a limitation to impose any tax on goods imported from other States. This power is subject to the condition that the goods manufactured or c produced within the State are also subjected to tax, so as not to discriminate between the goods imported from outside the State. Article 304(a) is not a limitation on the legislature of a State to impose such tax on goods imported. The only condition envisaged under Article 304 (a) is, same tax is imposable 011 the goods D imported from other States as well as goods if manufactured in that State. (Paras 8.17, 8.19, 8.20, 8.21 and 8.22] (368-A; 369-F- ll; 370-A; 371-A-C]

Video Electronics v. State of Punjah 1989

(2) Suppl. SCR 731 : (1990) 3 SCC 87 - affirmed. E Constituent Assemh/y Dehates, 1949. Vol. IX, Pages 1125, 1145 - referred to.

6.4 Taxing power lies in Article 245 read with 246. F The words "may by law'' appearing in Article 304 is not source of legislative power. ll is an option given to the Stales in case it decides to levy any tax on the goods imported from other States. The source of legislative power resides in Article 245 read with Article 246 which is indisputable. This power is not G subject to any implied limitation. The 1>lain reading would show that in a given situation, the State may by choice decide not to levy any tax imported from other States or, 'opt to levy taxes on certain goods imported from other States. Indeed in all the entry tax laws, the charging section enables the·levy'of entry tax only H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A on the scheduled goods. The scheduled goods are goods declared as attracting entry tax. [Para 8.23) [371-D-F'I 6.5 Discrimination is a relative concept; in order to discriminate a reference point is required. Article 304(a) rather than being an enabling provision to allow the State to impose tax, is a restricting provision, which prevents such levy of tax on goods as would result in discrimination between goods imported from other States and similar goods manufactured or produced within the State. The object is to p1·cvent discrimination against imported goods by imposing tax on such goods at a rate higher than that borne by local goods since the difference between the two rates would constitute a tariff wall or fiscal barrier and thus impede the free flow of inter-State trade and commerce. It does not prohibit levy of tax as such in the situation wherein the goods are not produced or manufactm·ed in the Stale itself and does not affect the authority of the State to tax the imported goods. It only bars discrimination on the basis of taxing the products manufactured within the Slate v;s-1i-vis imported goods which will only occur if the precondition of manufacturing in the taxing State is satisfied. [Para 8.24] (371-G-ll; 372-A-B]

7. There was good amount of debate on the doctrine of compensatory tax evolved by this Court in Automobile. The concept of compensatory tax has neithe1· any juristic basis nor a part of Indian Constitutional law. At the stage of drafting, at the stage of consideration by the Sub-Commillcc as well as Advisory Committee and when lhe Part XA (now Part XIII) was adopted F by the Constituent Assembly, never even for a moment, the principle of compensatory tax was thought of. f Para 8.26] (372- C-E]

.lriahari Tea Co. J.td. v. Srate of Assam & Ors. 1961 .SCR 809 : AIR 1961 SC 232; Automohile Transport 1 r1?(1j{;,·th111iJ L1d. ere v. _\·1ate pf Rajas1ha11 & Ors. 1963 pl ·s~:R 491 :. Ali{ '1962 ~f 1406'- not good ~~~v. Blwgatram Rajee1· Kumar v. en: .MP 1994 (6)·SuppL. SCR 91 : 1995 Suppl. (l) SCC 1636; State of Bihar E H

JINDAL STAINLESS !TD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 47

Bihar Chamher oj' Commerce and Ors. 1996 (2) SCR A 184: (1996) 9 SCC 136; Jindal Stainless Ltd. And Am: v. SI ale of Haryana and Ors. 2006 (3) SCR 1095 : AIR 2006 SC 2550; Jaiprakash Associates v. Slate of MP 2008 (17) SCR 1282 : 2009 (7) sec 339; Jindal Stainless Ud. and .Im: v. Slate of J-farvana 2010 (4) B SCC 595; Jindal S1rips Lrd. v. Srare of Ha1Jana 12003 j 129 S.'J'.C 534; .Jindal S1ripe Ud. v. Slate of Harvana 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 154: 2003 (8) SCC 60; Jindal S1rip.1· Limited 1·: Stale of Har)'ana 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 569 : 2006 (7) SCC 271; Indian Oil Cmporation 1: Stale of' Harvana (2009) 21 V.S.T 10 (P&ll); A. c Laksluninarh, PrecC'denl in India (3"• Ed.} p.178 (2009); In re Sea Customs 1lct 1964 SCR 787 : AIR 1963 SC J 760; Stale Trading, Corp. o( India Ltd. v. CTO 1964 SCR 99 : AIR .1963 SC 1811; Golaknath v. State of P1111jah 1967 SCR 762: AIR 1967 SC 1643; Naresh D

Shridhar Mirajkar v. Stale of Maharastra 1966

SCR 744 : AIR 1967 SC 1; S11ptd. And Remembrancer o(' f,e,'..!,al Affc1ir v. Corp. of Calculla 1967 SCR 170 : AIR 1967 SC 997; Ahmedahad Sr. Xavier College Sociclv v. State of Gujarat 11)75 (1) SCR 173 : (1974) E 1 SCC 717; Indira Sa11 hney 1.: UOJ 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 215; Supreme Co11rl Advocalc.1· on Record Association \'. UOI 1993 (3) SCR 669 : (1993) 4 sec 441; SR Ho111111ai v. UOJ (1994) 3 SCC I; Attorney General of India 1.: Amritlal Pmjvandm· (1994) 5 SCC 54; Mafatlal llld11stries v. UOJ 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 585 : 1997 f (5) SCC 536; <Vi'v!DC v. Stare of Punjab 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 472 : (1997) 7 sec 339; TMA Pai Foundation Case 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 : (2002) 8 SCC 481 (11 .iudge bench); J.R. Coelho v. State of TN 2007 (1) SCR 706 : (2007) 2 SCC 1; Central Board G of DaV1·oodi Bohra Community & ,Jnr. v. State of !vlaharashtrn & Am: 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 1054 : 2005 (2) SCC 673: Keshav .\!fills Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1965 SCR 908 : A.IR I 965 SC I 636; Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. 1'. Union Of India & Ors. 1980 AIR 1789: 1981 H

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A (1) SCR 206; State of West Bengal v. U11ion of India 119641 1 SCR 371; S.R. Bommai v. Union of India 119781 2 SCR 1; Special Reference No.I of 1964) 1965 SCR 413: AIR 1965 SC 745; ITC Limited v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee and Ors. 2002 (1) SCR 441 : (2002) 9 SCC 232 - referred to. 8 J,ord De1111i11g, Familv Storv, p. 207 (1999) - referred lo.

PER R. HANUMATill, .J. (Concurring) c 1.1 The underlining idea in making trade, commerce and intercourse throughout lhe territory of India free is to emphasize on the economic unity of India and to ensure that unity of the country may no! be broken by internal barriers. In order to ensure I) that the Slate Legislatures sub.jected to local and regional pulls did no! create trade barriers in future, Art. 301 was incorporated in !he Constitution. Art. 301 in general enacls that "subject to the other provisions of this Part, trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free". After having declared the general nature of the freedom of trade and commerce, Part XIII of the Constitution sets out the limitations to this freedom, in Articles 302 to 304 which re-state the powers of the Parliament and the State Legislatures in imposing restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. !Paras 15, 161 1382-A-H, D-EI f Ji11dal Stai11/ess Ltd. (2) and Am'. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2006 (3) SCR 1095 : (2006) 7 SCC 241 - overruled. K. T Plantation Private Limited and Another v. State of Karnataka 2011 (13) SCR 636 : (2011) 9 SCC 1; State G of Kera/a a11d Ors. v. ivlar Appraem Kuri Company Limited and .for. 2012 (4) SCR 448 : (2012) 7 SCC 106; Ma hara; Umeµ; Singh and Ors. v. The State of Bomhay a11d Ors. 1955 SCR 164: AIR 1955 SC 540 - referred to. H

JINDAL STAINLESS r;rD. v. STATE or HARYANA 49

1.2 Ar!.302 empowers the Parliament to impose restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse provided 1hey arc required in pnhlic interest The purpose of this provision is lo allow !he Government of India to restrict the movement of goods so as to safeguard a well-balanced economy and for proper organization or supply of goods and services. Famine may be raging in one par! of the country while there is plenty in another part, as has been the past experience of the country in regard to food. If Parliament has no effective powers to impose restrictions in such situations on freedom of trade and commerce, then it will undermine the unity of nation. It is reasonable to presume that !he Parliament, people's representative is a bet!er judge of public c interest and that its Judgment must have primacy over any other judgment, including that of the courts. !Para 17] [382-G-H; 383- Al 1.3 Ar!. 303(1) of the Constitution prohibits Parliament ]) and the Slate Legislature from making "any law giving or authorizing the giving of, any preference to one State over another, or making or authorizing the making or, any discrimination het ween Slate and another, by virtue of any entry relating to trade and commerce in any of the Usts in Seventh Schedule". P1·cfcrence or discrimination amounts to a restriction on the E freedom guaranteed under Ar!. 301 of the Constitution only if it is a law made by virtue of any entry relating to trade and commerce in any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule. Application of Art. 303(1) is to specific entries on trade and commerce and not to be confused with the general application of Art. 301 to all the legislative entries other than the entries relating to trade and commerce. But when any part of the country is suffering from scarcity of goods, Parliament may, to meet such a situation; pass even a discriminatory law [Art. 303(2)]. Art. 303(2) is an exception to Art. 303(1) inasmuch that the limitations of Art. 303(1) lose operation when aforesaid preference and discrimination is made G for the purpose of dealing with situation arising from scarcity of goods, and the Parliament may in these situations enact a law that gives or authorises giving preference or makes or authorises making of any discrimination. [Para 18] [383-C-E] H

50 SUPREME CDURT REPORTS [2016110 S.C.R.

1.4 As per Art. 304(a), a State Legislature may impose any tax on goods imported from other States or Union Territories to which similar goods produced in that State are also subject, so as not to discriminate between the goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced within the Stale. A State Legislature is also authorised to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade and commerce with or within that State as may be required in public interest, subject to the condition that no Hill or Amendment shall be moved in the Legislature of a State without previous sanction of the President !Art. 304(b)I. Art. 304 begins with non-obstantc clause and is intended to override c both Art. 30 I and Art. 303. Art. 304(a) does not prevent taxation of goods; it only prohibits taxes that discriminate between the goods imported from other States and similar goods that are manufactured or produced within the taxing State. [Para 19] [383- F-ll; 384-Al D 1.5 Part XII and Part XIII of the Constitution lay down the parameters within which State Governments can exercise their right to enact laws/impose tax, restricting the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. Puq>0se of including Part XIII (as it stands today) in the Constitution as emerges from Section 297 of the Government of India Act, 1935 was to confer a freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, subject to restrictions and non- discriminatory tax laws. In this respect, Art.301 does not confer any higher right. Even the Constitutional Assembly Debates show that the framers did not intend to confer any absolute freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. They did not adopt the expression "absolutely free" as found in the Australian Constitution. The purpose of including Part XIII in the Constitution as emerges frqm the Constituent Assembly Debates was to ensure the interest of the larger economy of the nation and to prevent unreasonable trade barriers in the free flow of trade, commerce and intercourse, impeding economic growth. Framers of the Constitution considered flow of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India as important for economic unity, but they did not deify trade, commerce and intercourse nor they entertained any fetish for it. In fact, freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse was initially meant to be a

JlNDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 51 fundamental right but was removed from the part pertaining to A 'Fundamental Rights' as it was considered that it did not have any great content as a fundamental right. !Paras 21, 25]1384-E- F; 387-U; 388-A-B] Jindal Stripe Ltd. and Am: v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 154 : (2003) 8. sec 60; B Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 2008 (17) SCR 1282 : (2009) 7 SCC 339; Jindal Stainless Limited and Anr. v. State of Harvana and Ors. 2010 (4) SCR 743: (2010) 4 SCC 595 - referred to. c "'Constituent Assemhly De hates 30. 07. 1949 to

18. 09. 19,19 " - referred to.

Freedom under Art. 301 is sub.iect to Part Xlll and other parts of the Constitution Parts viz. III, IV and XII etc.: 2.1 Interpretation of the Constitution should emerge from a reading of the whole of the Constitution to ensure that the overall objectives are achieved. Part XIII as a whole is based on a balanced scheme and it should be interpreted with reference to other parts of the Constitution including Part Ill, Part XII and Articles 38 and 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy. Each of these Parts must be read not in isolation or as water tight compartments but harmoniously as a logical whole. The Constitution must be treated as a logical whole and provisions are not to be read in isolation. !Para 31 I [392-G-H; 393-A) F

2.2 Object of Part Xlll is not to make inter-State trade, commerce and intercourse absolutely free. Part XIII will have to be rcl!d along with other Parts of the Constitution namely, Parts Ill, IV and XII along with the basic features of sovereignty and federalism. Free trade, commerce and intercourse is subject to G the other provisions of Part XIII as well as other constitutional provisions. A1·t. 301 does not use the word subject 'only' to Part XIII. The word "free" in Art. 301 is to be read not in isolation or in the limited context of Part XIII, but has to be read as part of H

52 SUPREME r::)lJRT REPOR!'S [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A the Constitution as a whole. The word "free" cannot be given a meaning which renders the legislative powers of the State ineffective. Articles 302 to 304 are neither exceptions nor provisos to Art. 301 and therefore, the principles of interpreting a proviso cannot be applied to them. But both Atiabari and B A utomohile proceeded on the footing that Art. 302 is in the nature of exception to Art. 301. [Paras 33, 34] J394-D-E, G]

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kera/a 1973 Suppl. SCR 1 : (1973) 4 SCC 225 - followed. c Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu 1992 (1) SCR 686 : (1992) Suppl. 2 SCC 651; TM.A. Pai Foundation and others F. State of Karnataka 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587: (2002) 8 sec 481 - relied on.

D Can the levy of a non-discriminatory tax per se constitute infraction of Article 301 of the Constitution of India? Power to Tax is an incident of State Sovereignty:- 3.1 Entries relating to taxation and levy of duty under the E State List, Seventh Schedule are Ent.ries 46-62 and under the Concurrent List, Seventh Schedule arc Entries 35, 43 and 44. The power to tax is a sovereign right of the State and is essent.ial to the very existence of a Government. Any fetters on the power of the State to generate revenue through taxes have a direct r · impact on the autonomy and governance of the State. The term 'tax' is ordinarily used to express the exercise of the sovereign power to raise revenue for the expenses of the Government. Subject t.o the Constitution and its inherent restrictions, the power of taxation is regarded as political and supreme. Without taxes, for lack of source of revenue, the Government would become· G paralyzed. How much revenue is to be drawn and from which source is a matter of fiscal policy and wholly depends on the needs of a State. [Paras 36, 37 and 40) J397-B-C; 399-F)

.JINDAL STAINLESS LfD. v. STATE or HARYANA 53

Raja Jagamwth Baldi Singh v. The State of U.P and A Anr. (1963) 1 SCR 220; State of WB. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Others 2004 (1) SCR 564 : (2004) 10 SCC 201; Yadlapati Ve11kateswarl11 v. State of A.P. 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 381 : 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 74, Stale of U. I' & Am: v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. & B ,Jnr. ( 1991) 4 SCC 139; Amrit Banaspmi Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Pun/ah and .1nr. 1992 (2) SCR 13 : (1992) 2 sec 411; Dena Bank V, Bhikhahhai Prahhudas Parekh & Co. and Ors. 2000 (3) SCR 509 : (2000) 5 sec 694 - relied on. c Constilutional Law of India. 4'h Edition, Volume 3; Coole_\', fo.wlion (4'h E(lition) Pages. 72, 149, 150; Referred to in the Article Power to Tax by Herman M. Knoellcr reported in Market Law Review Volume 22 Issue 3 April, 1938 - referred to. D

3.2 Parts XI and XII of the Constitution deal with "Relations between the Union and the States" and "Finance, Property, Contracts and Suits" respectively. Part XII dealing with finance etc. has been treated as Part dealing with the sovereign power of E the States to impose taxes, which must always mean imposing hurden on citizens and others in public interest. The power of taxation is vested in a sovereign State to carry on with the affairs of the Government. Our Constitution had laid the foundation of a Welfare State, very much extending the activities of the Government and the administration thus making it necessary for the State to impose taxes on a large scale and in much wider fields. The legislative competence of the Parliament or of the State Legislatures can only be circumscribed by express prohibition contained in the Constitution itself. The plenary powers of legislation vested in the Union and State Legislatures G by the Constitution are not subject to any limitations other than those imposed by the Constitution itself. !Para 42] 1400-D-F]

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A Elel Hotels & Investments Lrd. and Others v. Union of 117dia J989 (2) SCR 880 : (1989) 3 SCC 698 - referred to.

Freedom in Art. 301 does not mean freedom from taxation. B 3.3 Exemption from tax power of Parliament /State Legislature must be provided expressly and unambiguously. Art.289(2) shows that the trade and business carried on by or on behalf of the Government of the State can also be subjected to tax and the tax could be "to such an extent'', if any, as Parliament c may by law provide. When even the trade or business carried on by or on behalf of the Government of the State can also be subjected to tax, it would be erroneous to hold trade, commerce and intercourse carried on by private individuals and companies in the country free from tax; and that too, by implication. Even D Fundamental Rights in Part HI of the Constitution are not immune from taxation and taxation has been held to be "not a restriction". [Paras 49, 50] [403-A-C]

Indian Express Newspapers (Bomhay) Pvt. Ltd and Ors. E etc. v. Union of India and Ors. etc. 1985 (2) SCR 287 : (1985) 1 sec 641 - relied on.

3.4 While the States have legislative power to levy taxes r: on goods imported from other States, Art. 304(a) imposes restrictions on this power of the States to levy a tax on goods that would result in discrimination between goods imported from other States and similar goods manufactured or produced within the States. The non-obstante clause in Art. 304 with respect to G Art. 301, actually indicates that since tax does not fall within the purview of Art. 301, therefore, Art. 304(a) was brought in to provide against discrimination based on source or destination of goods. Art. 304(a) is thus a restriction on the tax powers of the States, not to discriminate between the goods imported into the State with similar goods manufactured or produced within the H

.TlNDAL STAINLESS ITD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 55 taxing State. [Para 531 1405-E-FI A 3.5 The Constituent Assembly Debates indicate that the framers of the Constitution while intending to guarantee free flow of trade, commerce and intercourse did not deify it. At the time nf drafting Constitution, provision containing freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse which was initially shown as B Fundamental Rights; but after debates, it was shifted to a separate Part !Part XIII!. The framers of the Constitution did not intend that trade, commerce and intercourse is free from taxation. Art. 304 provides for the power of the States to impose taxes, subject of course, the levy is not discriminatory. Hence, Art. 301 ought c not to be read as freedom from tax laws. A tax legislation could be challenged on the ground of legislative competence as well as violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part Ill of the Constitution. Tax legislations can be challenged on the ground that they infringe the Fundamental Rights under Part Ill but that docs not however mean that there is freedom from taxation or D that tax is per sc a restriction on Fundamental Rights or freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. !Paras 54, 56 and 57] [405- G, II; 406-A; 407-B; 409-DJ All Bihar Schools Association and Am: v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1988 (2) SCR 49 : (1988) l SCC 206; Printers E (Mrsore) Ltd. and Am: 1.: Asstt. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. 1994 (1) SCR 682 : (1994) 2 SCC 434 - affirmed.

r Tax is not a restriction per sc.

4. Under Art. 246(3) of the Constitution, a State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List 11 of the Seventh Schedule. Art. 246(3) is subject to clauses (1) and (2) of G Art. 246 i.e. matters enumerated in Lists l and Ill of the Seventh Schedule. As per Art. 265, a tax can be imposed only under authority of law and there is no role of the Executive. It is a sovereign power of compulsory exaction as a part of any burden hy public authority for public purposes enforceable by law. The H

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] JO S.C.R.

A taxing power of the State stands independently fortified by Parts XI and XII of the Constitution of India and can only be challenged on the ground of reasonableness. Power of States to levy taxes for the purpose of governance and carrying out its welfare activities is a necessary attribute of State's sovereignty and in that sense it is a power of supreme attribute. It is well-settled B that taxes are levied in public interest and hence, cannot be considered a restriction per se on the enjoyment of any freedom contemplated by the Constitution. The essential characteristics of a tax arc that: (i) it is imposed under a statutory power without the taxpayer's consent and the payment is enforced by law; (ii) it c is an imposition made for public purpose without reference to any special benefit to be conferred on the payer of the tax; and (iii) it is part of the common burden. [Paras 58-60] [409-F-G, H; 410-A-DJ

D Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri f,akshmindra l71irtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt 1954 SCR 1005; Indian Medical Association v. VP Santha and Ors. 1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 110 : (1995) 6 SCC 651; State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Akhil Gujarat E Pravasi VS. Mahama11da! and Ors. 2004 (3) SCR 956 : (2004) 5 SCC 155; Federation of Hotel a11d Restaurant Association of Jndia. Etc. v. Union of India and Ors. J 989 (2) SCR 918 : (1989) 3 SCC 634; Express Hotels Private Umited v. State of Gujarat and Am: 1989 (2) F SCR 893: (1989) 3 SCC 677; Hari Krishna Bhargav v. Union of India and Anr. 1966 SCR 22 : AIR 1966 SC 619; Rai Ramkrislma and Ors. V. me State of Bihar (1964) 1 SCR 897 - relied on.

MaJority view in Atillbari and Automobile: Need of re-appreciation. 5.1 Art. 301 guarantees freedom of trade and commerce from "restrictions" and not freedom from all "laws". In Atiabari, by application of "direct and immediate test", rather than H

JINDAL STAlNLESS !TD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 57 examining the powers of the State Legislature to enact legislation A with reference to the entries in List II, the majority has gone into the effects of the Iegislat.ion. As per ma.iority view of Atiabari, Art. 301 is a limitation upon the exercise of legislative powers of the State, which negates or limits the legislative power of the States expressly granted under various entries in List ll of the B Seventh Schedule. In Atiabari and A11tomobile, there was no detailed n'ference lo Constituent Assembly Debates which throw considerable light on the scope of Part XIU. The view taken in Atiabari and A11to111obile that taxes may and do amount to restriction, is flawed. Taxing power of the State stands independently fortified by Part XII of the Constitution and can be c challenged only on the ground of reasonableness.[Paras 72, 731[420-C-E] Freedom in Art. 301 is not freedom from taxation- non-discriminatory taxes are outside the purview of Art. 301. D 5.2 The views taken in Atiabari and Automobile in the light of the Australian cases represent a mechallical implantation of a foreign concept into the Indian legal system, not keeping in view the distinct features of Indian Polity and the Constituent Assembly Debates. Majority view in Atiabari and A11to111obile do not appear to have taken note of the historical background of merger of E 'i'<ative States' with their individualities, with British India, and the federal nat111·e of the Indian Constitution while discussing the fundamental question as lo whether 'Freedom' in Art. 301 meant freedom from tax. The majority appears to have begun with the presumption of tax laws being subservient to Art. 301 F and later concluded that if all the tax laws are hr.ought in Art. 301, State's legislative power to tax would be destroyed. Thereafter, in an attempt to save the taxing power of the State, they borrowed 1he concepts of 'direct and immediate test' and 'compensatory tax' from the Australian and American Cases. [Para 82] [426-C- G li:I Com111omveal1h of Australia v. Bank of New South Wales (1949) 79 CLR 497 : 119501 AC 235: James v Stale of So1//h llustralia (1927) 40 CLR 1; James v. Cou.·m1 (1932) AC 542; James v. Commo1rwealth o('Australia H

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A (1936) AC 578; Cole v. Whitfield (1988) 78 ALR 42; Betfc1ir Pty Ud v We.item Australia (2008) 244 ALR 32; Freeman v. Hewit 329 US 249 (1946), Complete Auto Transit. Inc. v. Charles R. Brady [19771 USSC 54: (1977) 430 lJS 274 · referred to. H Constitutional Assembly Debates, Volume IX,· I'agc.1142, dated 30.07.1949- 18.09.1949 - referred to.

Art.304 (a) and (b) must be read disjunctively. (' 5.3 As the word "restrictions" in the marginal note of Art. 304 suggests plurality of powers and indicates that Clauses (a) and (b) of Art. 304 confer distinct powers. Art. 304(a) deals with tax; Art. 304(b) deals with restrictions that are reasonable and in public interest. Constitution framers could not have intended to include tax in Art. 304(b ); since the elements of "reasonableness" and "public interest". are inhe1·cnt in a tax. The use of the word "and" does not assist the interpretation that the provisions are conjunctive. It only means that:- (i) the State can impose taxes on goods coming from outside so as not to discriminate between the goods imported and goods manufactured or produced within the State [Art. 304 (a)I -and- (ii) It can also in addition impose other restrictions that arc reasonable and in public interest [Art. 304 (b) I subject to the assent of the President. That Articles 304(a) and (b) are dis,junctive, is also clear from the fact that the proviso to A1·t. 304(b) i.e. the p1·csidential sanction· is referable to Art. 304(b) only and nol to a law imposing tax on goods imported from other States contemplated under Art. 304(a). This is because, Art. 304(a) has an inbuilt safcguanl, inasmuch the taxes imposed on the goods coming from another State cannot be discriminatory and, therefore, no presidential sanction is required. c; The word "and" is used after semi colon in Art. 304(a}. While it is correct to say that the word "and" normally is conjunctive, it is also often constrned as disjunctive on the basis of the legislative intent as gathc1·ed from the wm·ds of the prnviso under context in which it was used. Since the expression ·and' is used in Art. II

.11NDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 59

304 after semi-colon, it will have to be read as 'or' creating a A disjunctive reading of Art. 304(a) and Art. 304(b) indicating that the State Legislature can exercise its power either under Art.304 (a) or Art. 304 (b) or both. [Paras 90-92] [430-F-H; 431-A-D; 433-G-U] B lvfalwrishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vislrwavidvalaya v. State of Afadhya Pradesh and Others 2013 (13) SCR 464 : (2013) 15 SCC 677; A.K. Gopa/011 v. State of Madras 1950 SCR 88 : AIR 1950 SC 27 - relied on. c Whether A1·t. 304(b) coupled with the proviso is applicable to tax laws-.! udicial Approach. 5.4 In Atiabari, majority held that "tax laws" fall within the comprehension of Art. 301 and, therefore, any legislation whether taxing or otherwise which imposes any direci restriction on the movement or transport of goods attracts the provisions of Art. 301, and its validity can be sustained only if it satisfies the requirements of Art. 302 or Art. 304. According to the above view in Atiabari, it is not possible for the State Legislature to pass any law at all with respect to some of the tax entries viz. sales tax (entry 54, List II); law relating to gambling (entry 34, List 11) or tax on betting and gambling (entry 62, List 11); and tax on the can-iage of goods or passengers by road or inland waterways (entry 56, List II). If the legislations under the above entries arc challenged on the ground that they operate as a direct f restriction on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, as per the view in Atiabari, these legislations may have to be justified under Art. 304(b). Atiabari approach would totally take away the sovereign powers of the State Legislature to enact laws in exercise of its powers under various taxing entries of List II, G which could not have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution. [Para 93] 1434-B-D] Art.304(b) is applicable only to non-fiscal laws and not to lax la,vs. H

60 SUPREME COURf REPORTS [2016] I 0 S.C.R.

A 6. Art.304(a) and Art.304(b) are two distinct powers and freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse is sub,jcct to them. Art. 304(b) relates to reasonable restrictions imposed in public interest. Art. 304(b) deals with non-fiscal legislation imposing reasonable restrictions in public interest and tax laws are not included under Art. 304(b). Levy of taxes is the economic lifeline B of the State. Framers of the Constitution never intended to include tax within the fold of Art. 304(b). To give the Centre a veto over the plenary power of the State to levy the tax would completely distort the Centre-State balance and cooperative federalism. Such an interpretation has no basis in the Constitutional Assembly c Debates and is liable to be rejected. The rationale for the sanction of President contemplated by proviso to Art. 304(b) is apparent from the fact that trade and commerce with foreign countries and inter-State trade and commerce are subject matters in List I of the Seventh Schedule (entries 41 and 42, List I). Further, trade D and commerce in production, supply and distribution of industry controlled by the Union, food stuffs, including edible oils, seeds and oils; cattle fodder; raw cotton, cotton seed; and raw jute are subject matters in entry 33, List HI. Entry 34, List Ill deals with price control. Only intra-State trade and commerce is in List II (entry 26, List II) subject to entry 33, List III, as stated therein. E Parliament has thus occupied an overwhelming space with respect to trade and commerce within the State also. It is in this backdrop that the State has been given power to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse with or within that State with the proviso requiring presidential f assent. before the Bill is introduced. The rationale, therefore, is that a non-fiscal law of the State with respect to freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse would be entrenching upon either the exclusive legislative field of the Parliament in List I or the occupied field of the Parliament in List Ill. It follows that Art. Ci 304(b) relates to non-fiscal laws of the States. In the above context, the assent of the President envisaged in proviso to Art.304(b) would be somewhat akin to the assent contemplated in Art. 254. Such assents are not judicially reviewablc. IParns 94, 99 and 1001 1434-E-F; 438-F-H; 439-A-H]

JINDAL STAINLESS Ll'D. \'.STATE or HARYANA 61

Kaiser-i-l!i11d (P) Ud. a11d A111: v. National Textile A Corp11. (Maharashtrn North) Ltd. and Others (2002) 8 sec 182 - affirmed. Atiahari Tea Co. Ud. v. State ofAssam & Ors. 1961 SCR 809 : AIR 1961 SC 232; Auto111ohil.e Transport (Rajasthan) Ud. etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 1963 B SCR 491 : AIR 1962 SC 1406; Jindal Stainless Ltd. (2) & A11r. v. State of Harvana & Ors. 2006 (3) SCR 1095: (2006) 7 SCC 241 - overruled. Consti111tional Law o( India. 4th Edition, Volume 3 - referred to. c ls the entry tax levied by the States in the present batch of cases violative of Ari. 301 of the Constitution and in particular have the impugned slate enactments relating to entry tax to be tested with reference to both Articles 304(a) and 304(b) of the constitution for determining their validity? 7.1 A bare reading of Entry 52, List ll would show that entry tax can be levied only on the satisfaction of the conditions in l~ntry 52 of List II namely: (i) the tax to be levied on the entry of goods into local area; (ii) entry of goods into the local area is for consumption, use or sale therein. Entry tax is not collected at the behest of municipality or a panchayat attached to a checkpost. It is payable by the assesses by filing their returns. Ent.ry tax is a Stale level levy, levied by Slate Legislature upon entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein. The local authorities themselves cannot levy the tax. The power is that of State Legislature and of no one. Imposition of entry tax is not n1crcly "on movement or transport of goods"; consideration of Entry 52, Lisi II of Seventh Schedule shows that taxable event in lhe case of entry tax is entry of goods into the local area where it is to be used, consumed or sold therein. If the goods merely enter into a local area and then move to another destination beyond that local area, no tax can be levied under Entry 52. Since lhc taxable event under Entry 52 is not the mere entry of the goods into the local area, but the fact that the ·goods are also to H

62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A be used, consumed or sold, the necessary sequiter is that the movement of goods is terminated in that local area. Power to levy entry tax lies within the competence of a State Legislature. Since entry tax is leviable at the termination· of the movement of trade and the goods have entered the local area for the purpose of use, consumption or sale, the levy of entJ·y tax does not restrict B flow of trade, commerce or intercourse and is not violative of Article 301 of the.Constitution. [Paras 104, 110 and 1121 1440-G- ll: 441-A, C; 443-G-II; 445-H; 446-A-Cj Diamond Sugar Mills Limited v. State of U.P 1961 (3) c SCR 242; M. 0. Sha111sudhi11 v. State of' Kera/a 1995 (2) SCR 900 : (1995) 3 SCC 351; Bzmnah Shell Oil Storage and Disturhing Co. of' India Ltd. Belgaum v. Belgaum Borough M1111ir:ipalitv Helga11111 Ce/11963 SCR Suppl. (2) 216 - referred to.

D Rn try Tax levied only on goods imported from other States: No levy of Entry Tax on the goods manufactured inside the State - Whether discriminatory. 7.2 The term 'any tax' means any exaction by any impost F or levy. The effect of all the taxes levied on the goods imported from other States and the ones manufactured within the State must be such that no discrimination is caused either to the imported goods or locally manufactured goods. Unlike Section 92 of t.he Australian Constitution, Art. 304(a) does not talk of F uniformity. Section 92 of the Australian Constitution reads as follows:- "On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free." No such restr-iction is imposed on the legislative power of the States in India to ensure uniformity in levy of a particular tax. The raison cl' etre for use of the expression "so, however, as not to discriminate" is to prohibit protectionism. Moreover, Constitution of India does not contain a provision similar to Section 55 of the Australian Constitution which mandates one tax law on one subject. In India, the State Legislature is nowhere H

JINDAL STAINLESS !TD. v. STAl'E Of HARYANA 63 obligated by the Constitution to ensure that the.law imposing tax A deals with one subject of taxation only. !Paras 114, 116] 1447-C, G-H; 448-A-B]

J11dia11 Cnnent and Ors. v. State of".1.ndhra Pradesh and B Ors. 1988 (2) SCR 574 : (1988) 1 SCC 743; Western Electronic and Am: v. State al Gujarat and Ors. 1988 (3) SCH 768 : (1988) 2 SCC 568 - referred to.

7.3 The chai·gcablc event in the case of entry tax is entry c of goods into a local area. By its very nature, entry tax does not contemplate impost on indigenous goods. Goods imported into a local area from another State are subjected to entry tax but goods entering into a local area from another local area of the same State do not attract entry tax. In this way, it may appear that goods imported from outside the State are put to a disadvantageous position but in terms of tax treatment the1·e is no discrimination. The essence of Art. 304(a) lies in ensuring equality of fiscal burden and absence of discrimination. In terms of Art. 304(a), the only requirement is that the goods imported into the local area should not be discriminated against. In tax treatment there is no discrimination between the goods. !Para 117][448-C-E] 7.4 The expression 'any tax' used in Art. 304(a) is generic in nature and covers all taxes on goods which a State is competent to impose by virtue of Articles 245 and 246 read with List II of Seventh Schedule. A Scheme adopted by a State Legislature whereby several taxes are levied on the goods (either locally Jlroduced or imported from other States) under different heads, cannot be faulted with if it conforms to the principle of equivalence and non-discrimination. For e.g., both sales tax levied under Entry G 54, List II and entry tax levied under Entry 52, List II are taxes on goods. It is the burden of the tax which can discriminate and not the form. States are free to equalise the burden of entry tax on the goods imported from other States by giving them set-off against the sales tax paid by them in the exporting State. In such H

64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

/\ a manner, equivalence can be hrought about in the tax burden borne by the goods imported from other States and the locally manufactured/produced goods. The contention of the assessees that the term 'any tax' used in Art. 304(a) refers to every tax distinctly, thereby prohibiting imposition of entry tax on imported goods unless, entry tax is imposed on locally manufactured/ B (Hoduced goods, does not lead to just and reasonable interpretation of Art. 304(a). The wholesome effect of the laxes levied under distinct heads needs to be taken into account. The lax burden borne by the goods form a part of the price of the goods and if both, locally manufactured/produced goods and c imported goods are subjected lo similar tax burdens, irrespective of the heads under which the taxes are levied, say entry tax or sales tax etc., then no discrimination can be said to have been caused. In case if entry tax not levied to equalize tax burden on the local goods and goods imported from outside, there will be huge trade diversion to low-rate tax State, causing loss of revenue to the high-rate tax Stales, where the goods are used or consumed. !Paras 118, 119] 1448-F-H; 449-A-C] 7 .5 Any difference in the rate of tax on goods locally manufactured and those imported, such difference not being discriminatory does not fall foul of Art. 304(a). Any incentive/ benefits of concession in the rate of tax given to the indigenous manufacturers in order to encourage the manufacture/production in the State cannot be said to be discriminatory.f Para 1451 1469- G! F Kathi Ra11i11g Rawat v. 777e State ol Saurashtra (1952) SCR 435 - affirmed. Firm ATB Mehtah Majid & Co v. State of Madras & Am: I 963 Suppl. SCR 435 : AIR 1963 SC 928; State of Madras v. N.K. Nataraja Muda!iar (1968) 3 SCR 829; State ol Kera/a v. Ahdul Qadir and Others 1970 (1) SCR 700 : (1969) 2 SCC 363 - referred to. Prof: D.D. Basu in Comparative Federalism. Prentice Hall of India, 1987 ·-referred to.

JINDAL STAINLESS TTD. v. STA.TE OF HARYANA 65

Repercussions of Art. 304(a) when no local goods are produced.

8. A State law that imposes a tax on imported goods where similar goods arc not manufactured or produced in that State, will meet the requirement of Art.304(a) and there would not arise any question or discrimination. lt is true that when similar goods arc not manufactured inside the State, there are chances of a higher rate of lax on such goods brought into the taxing State from other States but that docs not mean that there should be a blanket protection of such goods from tax. Power of the State to lax the goods imported cannot be whittled down on the ground that there are no similar goods manufactured or produced within the taxing State. Exorbitant taxation of such goods will remain open to challenge under Part Ill in Ari. 19(1)(g) read with Art. 19(6) and Art. 14. !Paras 150, 1511 1470-A; 472-F-ll]

D Kolwmi Stores v. State of' Grisso and Others 1966 1 SCR 865 - not good law.

Levy of Entry Tax on lm1Jorted Goods. E 9.1 "Import" means bringing or taking by sea or air across any customs frontier. Goods imported in a vessel/aircraft require payment of customs duty before they are cleared into the country. I mporl of goods and customs clearance and the entry of goods into the local areas are two distinct events. In the case of customs f duty, the taxable event is entry of goods into the territory of India. The taxable event under Entry 52, List 11 is the entry of goods into local area for consumption, use or sale therein. Two taxable t'venh are distinct in law and there is no overlap. Under our Constitution, there is no overlapping in the taxing power. The Constitution gives independent powers of taxation to the Union G and the States. The taxing power of the Onion and of the States are mutually cxclusin. This avoids the difficnlties which have arisen under other J•'edcral Constitutions. !Paras 155, 160, 161 and 1661 [473-B; 474-H; 475-F-G; 476-E-F; 478-.FI H

66 SUPREME CC>LIRT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A Hoechst Pharmaceuticals v. Stale of Bihar l 983 (3) SCR 130 : (1983) 4 sec 45; Stale of rVi:st Bengal V. Kesoram !11d11slries 2004 (1) SCR 564 : (2004) IO SCC 201; G11jara1 /lni/111/a Ce111e11t J,td. v. Union of India 2005 (2) SCR 1038: (2005) 4 sec 214 - relied on. Fl P Ramanatha Aivar \· "17ze Major J,aw Lexicon", 4'" l<:dition 2010 - referred to.

9.2 According to F:ntry 83, List I as well as the Customs Act, 1962 the taxable event is 'import' or 'bringing of the goods c into India' and it is distinct from the taxable event of Entry 52, List IL The taxable events under F:nlry 83, List I and I<:ntry 52, List II are distinct; any movement of the imported goods to the warehouse in the factory unit would not prevent the State from levying and collecting entry tax when such goods enter a local area of the Slate for consumption, use or sale therein. !Paras 171, 1761 1481-F:; 482-G-II; 483-AI

Province of Madras v. Bodd11 Paidanna & Sons AIR 1942 FC 33 : l 942 FCR 90; State of Bomhay v. FN. F Balsam (CB) AIR 1951 SC 318; State of Travancore- Cochin v. S!za111n11gha Vilas Cashew Nut Facton' (1954) SCR 53; Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahad11r Pander 1984 (2) SeR 664 : (1984) 2 sec 534 - relied on. F Prol frihe 011 American Co11stitutio11al Law States - referred to.

9.3 When the entry tax is levied by the Entry Tax Act G enacted by the State Legislature, the term 'a local area' contemplated by Entry 52 may cover the 'Whole State' or 'a local area' as notified in the legislation . .From the point of view of entry tax that the Stale is a compendium of local areas and whe1·c the local areas contemplated by the Acl cover the entire State, H the diffei-cncc between lhe State and 'a local area' practically

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE Of I-IARYANA 67 disappears. Articles 304(a) and 304(h) are to be read A dis.iunctivcly; both apply to different sub.ice! matters; while Art . .104(a) deals with tax, Ar!. 304(b) deals only with non-fiscal matters. !Para 1771 1483-C-EI State of fJihar and Ors. v. Bihm· Chamber of Commerce and Ors. 1996 (2) SCR 184 : (1996) 9 SCC 136 - B affirmed.

9.4 Where there is equivalence in terms of tax treatment between the locally produced goods and the ones imported from c other States, levy of entry tax on the goods imported from other States when there is no such levy on the locally produced goods is not discriminatory. Every differentiation is not discrimination. Any difference in the rate of tax on goods locally manufactured and those imported, such difference not being discriminatory does not fall foul under Art.304(a). Any incentive/benefits of concession D in the rate of tax given to the local manufacturers/producers in order to encourage the local manufacturers/production in the State cannot he said to be discriminatory. !Para 1771 1483-F-ll; 484-AI

E Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Am: v. State of Pzmjah ,111</ A111: 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 731 : (1990) 3 sec 87; Sri Dip,vi;av Cement Company Limited and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Others 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 428 : (2000) l sec 688 - affirmed. f Shri Mahavir Oil Mills and 11111: v. State of J&K and Others 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 356 : (1996) 11 sec 39; Stme of UP. and .1111: v. La.rn1i Paper Marr and Ors. 1997 (1) SCR 914 : (1997) 2 SCC 697 - not good law.

Can a tax which is compensatory in nature also fall foul of Ar·ticle 301 of the Constitution of India'? What are the tests for determining whether the tax or levy is compensatory in nature? 10.1 The concept of 'compensatory tax' is a judicially H

68 SUPREME r'OlJRI' REPORTS [2016] LO S.C.R.

A evolved concept. Majority in Atiabari held that taxes may and do amount lo rcsl.rictions and hence tax legislation is subject. to scrutiny under Art. 301. In Atiabari, the test of "direct and immediate effect on trade, commerce and intercourse" was evolved. The majority in Atiabari had thus completely read down State's taxing power under Entry 52, List ll thereby holding that State's legislative power is subject to the freedom clause in Art.

301. This had an adverse effect OI) the legislative power of the State to levy tax and its financial autonomy. (Para 178) (484-D-F( 10.2 All the taxes arc intended for public purpose and are c levied in public interest. Levy of tax is not to fill the State coffers but to perform various functions including public welfare for which said funds are required. Taxation is not a profit-making exercise for the St.ates; the States perform several functions for which they require funds and have the power to levy tax to raise revenues and thus virtually all taxes are monies paid for services I) or facilities provided by the State. Art. 266(1) provides that all revenue including that from taxes received by a State Government shall form one consolidated fund-the Consolidated Fund of the State. This fund is a reservoir and resources placed in it are a part of the whole. All revenue is subsumed in ii and cannot be delineated. The Consolidated Fund of a State is a single unified account for the State and withdrawal of money from the same is protect.eel by the requirement of passing an Appropriation Act. Further, Art. 266(3) by stating that 'no money out of any Consolidated Fund shall be appropriated except in accordance with law - for the purposes and in the manner provided in the Constitution' provides another safeguard in lieu of ensuring legitimate use of public money. The manner of appropriation of money collected in the Consolidated Fund of the State falls under Part VI, Chapter Ill, ranging from Articles 202 to 206 of the Constitution. There are sufficient constitutional safeguards for c; the apprnpriation of money collected in Consolidated Fund. The revenue generated by the States in the form of entry tax has to necessarily form part of this Fund, and once it so subsumed, States cannot be asked to show a 'proximate quid pro quo' by furnishing 'quantifiable data' as to their expenditure. It may not be possible 1-1 for the States to show with mathematical precision a direct link

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE or HARYANA 69 between the expenditure incurred in individual cases and the A corresponding levy imposcd.[Para 18711492-D-H; 493-AI 10.3 The entry tax levied by various States, falling within the domain of entry 52, List II, is a tax simpliciter, even though by nomenclature it is termed as a 'compensatory tax'. Subject to passing the muster of Art. 304(a), entry tax levied by the States B under entry 52, List JI even though termed as compensatory tax docs not fall foul of Art. 301. The narrnw approach in Jindal Stai11less Ud. (2) equating compensatory laxes to 'fee' and mandating the States to prove 'proximate quid pro quo' by 'quanliliahk data approach' is not correct. Since taxes arc held lo be outside the purview of Art. 301, taxes in the name of 'compensatory taxes' arc also outside the purview of Art. 301. To uphold a regulatory or compensatory tax, comprehensive parameters cannot he laid down as they may vary depending upon the nature of the levy. Automobile case itself has laid down parameters of compensatory laxes. It is not necessary that the ]) money so collected should be put into a separate fund or that the lev~' should be proportionate to the expenditure. Insofar as levy of entry tax is concerned, enactments of some Slates facial!)' declare that they are compensatory. The compensatory tax so levied is subsumed in the Consolidated Fund of the Slate~ Once E there is intermingling in the Fund and money is spent for public purposes of development of various local areas like construction, maintenance of roads and bridges, and for other amenities which facilitate trade, there will always be a link between the liability of the tax borne by the traders and benefits enjoyed by them either directly or indirectly. 1Parns 188-1901 1493-B, D-lll

8/wgatram Rajeev Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax. M.1' and Ors. 1994 (6) Sup1)l. SCR 91 : 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 673 - affirmed. G State of" Tamil Nadu v. TVL South Indian Sugar Mill~ Association 2015 (9) SCR 148 : (2015) 13 SCC 748, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and Others v. Orient Paper & Industries Jtd. 1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 392 : (1995) 1 H

70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016J 10 S.C.R.

A SCC 655 and Krishna Das v. Town Area Committee, Chil;e,aon 1990 (2) SCR 13 : (1990) 3 SCC 645; GK. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu 1975 (2) SCR 715 : (1975) l SCC 375; lntemational Tourists Corporation and Ors. v. Stale of Harvana and Ors. 1981 (2) SCR 364 : (1981) 2 SCC 318; Governor General of Council \'. Provi11ce of Madras AIR 1945 PC 98 : 58 LW 228; Ram Krisha11 Ram Na!h Agarwal 1•. Secretan', Municipal Committee, Kamptce, Union of India 1950 SCR 15 : AIR 1950 SC 11 ·- referred to.

c Refund and unjust enrichment:-

11. It is well-seUlcd that a claim of refund can be allowed only when the claimant establishes that he has not passed on the tax burden to the consumers. No refund can be granted so as to cause windfall gain to any person when he has not suffered the burden of tax. The possibility of the tax burden having been passed on to the consumers by the assessees cannot be ruled out in the present case. In the present case, the assessees cannot claim refund irrespective of whether the impugned legislations are F declared valid or unconstitutional. Unless the assessees establish that they have not passed 011 the tax burden to the consumers, they cannot make a claim for refund and unjustly enrich themselves. [Para 1981 [498-G-H; 499-A]

F Mafi11lal Industries Ltd v. Union of India 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 585: (1997) 5 SCC 536; Godji·ey Philips India Ltd. v. Stale of UP 2005 (1) SCR 732 : (2005) 2 sec 515 - relied on. S\'llthetics & Chemicals v. State of UP (1990) 1 SCC G 109; Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Slate of Bihar 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 146: (1999) 9 SCC 620 -referred to.

JINDAL STAJNLESS ITD. v. STArE or HARYANA 71

PER DR. D. Y. CHANDRACIJUD, .I. (Partly dissenting) A Part XIII of the Constitution: Text and Context 1.1 In framing Article 301, the framers of the Constitution made a deliberate departure from the text of the Australian and US Constitutions. One of the aspect of A1·ticle 301 in which a B conscious departure was made from the US and Australian Constitutions is that the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse extends, in our Constitution, throughout the territory of India and not merely among the states. The expression 'among the states' would cover a movement inter-State or across State boundaries. In discarding the expression "among the states" C (which is used in Section 92 of the Australian Constitution) and "among several states'' (which is used in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution), Article 301 guarantees a more comprehensive coverage to the freedom to include both intcr- Stat e and intra-State trade, commerce and intercourse. D 'Throughout the territory of India', means in every part of India. !Paras IO, 121 1507-C-D; 508-D-F] 1.2 The provisions of Part XIII of the Constitution contain an elaboration of the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse and the restrictions which the Constitution contemplates as being E within the legislative powers of Parliament and the slate legislatures. The legislative power conferred upon Parliament can restrict the arnhit of the freedom to the extent that is specified in Articles 302 and 303. Similarly, the slate legislatures arc subject to the limitations contained in Article 303 (1) and Article 304. Parliament as well as the state legislatures are subject lo constitutional limitations on the exercise of their law making power in restricting the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. The extent of the freedom under Article 301 has in this manner been made subject to the provisions of Part Xlll. Those provisions of Part XIII define the extent to which a G 1·estriction can be imposed by law as well as the limitations on the power of Parliament and the state legislatures while p1·cscribing a rcstTiction. [Paras 18, 19] [512-D-F]

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I 0 S.C.R.

A A Consiitutional history as a guide

2. The deliberations in the Constituent Assembly surrounding the introduction of Part XIII leave little ambiguity about the constitutional philosophy underlying the introduction of the guarantee of free trade, conunerce and intercourse. The H guarantee of that freedom was guided by the ob.iect of fostering economic development. Towards achieving that goal, the founding faH1ers recognised the need to weave the nation into one economic entity. At the same lime, regional interests representing the diversity prevalent within the states had to be recognised by c allowing a regulator~· role for the states. While recognising the importance of the state legislatures in relation to trade, commerce and intercourse, the founding fathers had evident concerns about what they described as parochial interests or narrow provincial policies posing a clanger to the economic development of the nation. Ileuce, the Union Government was conferred with a power I) of intervention which was qualitatively different from the regulatory power conferred upon the states. It was in that background that !he proviso to Article 304 (b) mandated the prior sanction of the President to a bill or amendment introduced in the state legislature for imposing reasonable restrictions in the E public interest on the freedom that was guaranteed by Part Xlll. !Paras 3311519-F-II; 520-A-C]

Fu11da111ental Rights by Dr. K.M. Munshi B. Shiva Rao, The Framing uf" India '.1· Constitution, Vol. II, p. F 69(1967) (B. Shiva Rao); Sir Alladi Krishnaswa111i l_ver, B. Shiva Rao, p.68.; Co11stituent Assemhly Debate. Vol. IX, 8th September 1949 - referred to.

G Compensatory Taxes 3.1 Compensatory taxes which are in the nature of a charge for the use of trading facilities \\Ould not be regarded as being a hindrance to the freedom of trade, so long as they are reasonable. Ry first devising the concept and then placing it beyond the pale H

JINDAL SlAINLESS I.TD. v. STAfE OF HARYANA 73 of Article 301, the Court in Automobile Transport ensured that A compensatory taxes would not be subject In the constitutional grind of Article 304(a). A class of tax legislation bearing a compensator.v character was carved out of Part XIII. The principle that Automohile Transport enunciates is that the freedom under 1\i-ticle 301 is consistent with facilitative regulations which B ('nhancc, rathe1· than hinder trade. Second, though the power to lax is an essential attrihute of government, it is subject to constitntional limitations including amongst them Part Xlll of the Constitution. As a consequence, tax laws are not as a matter of principle outside the ambit of Article 301. Third, the test to be applied in determining whether a law infringes the freedom c guaranteed by Article 301 is whether the direct and immediate effect is to hinder the movement of trade. A law which has that effect, including a tax law must, where it has been enacted by the state legislature be subject to the provisions of Article 304. Fourth, compensatory taxes which are imposed in consideration D of the facilities which are provided hy the state to trade and commerce are outside the ambit of Article 301. Fifth, a compcnsator.v tax does not hinder the freedom of trade and commerce and need not compl_v with the requirements of the proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution. !Paras 71, 7611544- E E-F; 549-H-El

Khverhari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam (1964) 5 SCR 975; SK Madar Saheh 1·. State of AP 1972 (2) SCR 853 : 1972 (4) SCC 635; Boiani Ores J.td v. State F of Orissa 1975 (2) SCR 138: 1974 (2) SCC 777; GK. Krishnan v. State of TN 1975 (2) SCR 715: 1975 (1) sec 375 ; MA International Tourist Corporation & Ors. v. State of Harrana and Ors. 1981 (2) SCR 364 : (1981) 2 SCC 318 ; lvlalwa Bus Service (Private) Ltd. G 1•. State of Punjah and Others 1983 (2) SCR l 009 :

(1983) 3 SCC 237; Meenakshi v. State of Karnataka 1983 AIR 1283 : 1984 Suppl. SCC 326; B.A. Jayaram v. Union of India 1983 (3) sen. 624 : 1984 (I) SCC 168; Mis. Bhagatram Rajeev Kumar v. H

74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] IO S.C.R.

A Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P and Ors. 1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 91 : 1995 Supp ill SCC 673; State of Kamataka v. llan.1·a Corp. 1981 (1) SCR 823 : 1980 (4) SCC 697; India Cement Ud i: State of Tamil Nadll 1989 (I) Suppl. SCR 692 : 1990 (1) SCC 12; State of B Maharashtra 1·. Jvladhukar Balkrishna Badiya 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 482 : 1988 (4) SCC 290; Jindal Stripe Ltd. a11d Am: v. State ofHmyana and Ors. 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 154 : (2003) 8 SCC 60; Jindal Stainless Ltd. (2) and .·lnr. v. State of Han·mw and Ors. 2006 (3) SCR 1095 : (2006) 7 sec 241 -- referred to. c Doctrinal concerns and inconsistencies 3.2 The theory of compensatory taxes was evolved in Automohile Transport to assimilate doctrinal concerns at several D levels. Fr-cedom of trade and commerce under Article 301 of the Constitution is expressly made subject to the provisions of Part XIII. The deliberate use of the expr·cssion 'fr.cc' instead of "absolutely free" (the latter expression being adopted in the Australian Constitution) coupled 11 ith the language of Article 301 E which subjects its 1>rovisions to Part Xlll is indicative of the fact that the freedom which is guaranteed is subject to legislative control. Articles 302, 303 and 304 are a part of the constitutional scheme which, while defining the ambit of the freedom in Article 301 subjects it to restrictions under Articles 302 and 304. The nature of the restrictions and the limitations on the power of F Parliament and of the state legislatures while legislating to impose restrictions is conditioned by constitutional parameters. The conditions are based on the fulfilment of substantive and pn1cedural norms: substantive such as the principle of non- discrimination, the element of public interest and reasonableness; and procedural (if it can be regarded as a matter of procedure) by requiring the sanction of the President prior to the introduction of a Bill in the state legislature. Compensatory taxes were envisaged as a doct.-inal concept to prcser-ve an area where the sovereignty of the state legislatures in fiscal matters could operate without the constraining influence of a prior Presidential sanction. H

JINDAL S1AINLESS U'D. v. STATE OF HARYANA 75

Such taxes would not fall within the ambit of Article 301. Their A position was reconciled with freedom on the ground that a compensatory tax for the use of facilities is not a hindrance to trade hut facilitates it. !Paras 96, 99]1563-F-ll; 564-A-B; 565-C- ll] ,11/ India Federation of fox Practitioners v. Union of' B India 2007 (9) SCR 147: 2007 (7) SCC 527; State of' A.P v. NTPC 2002 (3) SCR 278 : 2002 (5) sec 203; Sri Digvi;av Cemrnt Company Umited and Ors. v. State of Rajastlum and Others 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 428 : (2000) l sec 688; State of Bihar and Ors. V. Bihar c C/wn1her of Commerce and Ors. 1996 (2) SCR 184 : (1996) 9 sec 136 - referred to.

3.3 As this batch of appeals indicates, the state legislatures have amended their entry tax legislation to incorporate specific sfalul<ff)' prnvisions indicating the manner in which the proceeds of the tax would he utilized so as to enable the tax to approximate a compensatory tax. Once the state legislature has done so, by adopting statutory provisions, would the Court have either the expertise or the competence to second guess the basis which has been made by the state legislature? The answer to that would necessarily have to be in the negative. The Court cannot assume the character of an accountant overseeing the balance sheets of income and expenditure and enquiring into capital account investments made by the states. Such matters do not lie within the competence or ken of judicial review. More fundamentally, all tax revenues are utilised by the state for public purposes. All taxation being in aid of lhe creation of conditions of social order, a compensatory element can never be disassociated from taxation. Equally insofar as fees are concerned, the payment which is required to be made is not always voluntary. The contribution exacted from trade and commerce may not always be for the actual use of a facility but may be for the provision of the facility which trade and commerce is entitled to use. The state expends large budgets on providing expenditure to maintain law and order and security. The distinction between a tax and a fee has become H

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A blurred in 0111· jurisprndcnce and Courts have found it difficult to find a clear dividing line. !Para 1031f569-B-Fl 3.4 A doctrinal irrationality which the theory of compensatory taxes fails to meet is a discriminatory compensatory tax. Discriminatory taxes which single out goods B originating in other states to hostile discrimination violate Article 304(a). If compensatory taxes as a class fall outside Part XIII, this would include even those compensatory taxes which are discriminatory. While holding that compensatory taxes fall outside Part XIII, the theory propounded by this Court did not account c for the position that discriminatory compensatory taxes constitute an impediment to trade and commerce, thereby violating Article

301. Hence, the notion of compensatory taxes is beset with doctrinal problems. The concept has led to uncertainty and vagueness and has produced inconsistencies in constitutional adjudication. Constitutional adjudication must avoid these I) uncertainties which result in a multiplication of litigation and uncertainty both lo the revenue and to the tax payer. Uncertainty in the application of fisca'I legislation leads to a situation where tax compliance is beset with interprctational and practical difficulties. A concept which is replete with such evident problems is best eschewed. !Paras 104, 10511569-F-G; 570-A-BJ The content of freedom : goods, services, persons and capital

4. Article 301 has guaranteed the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse (subject to the provisions of Parl XIIJ). F Article 19(1 )(g) guarantees to every citizen the right to carry on any occupation trnde or business. At a certain level, a distinction can be drawn between the two sets of freedoms. Article 19(1)(g) guarantees individual freedom. Article 301, on the other hand, looks al trade, commerce and intercourse as a whole. Such a G distinction however may have its own limitations. Individual rights of all citizens protected by Article 19 lead to the establishment of a constitutional democratic order governed by the rule of Jaw and based on human freedom. The dichotomy that Article 301 in its perspective looks at trade and commerce as a whole (as distinguished from an individual right) may also have its own 1-1

JINDAL STAJNIJ-:ss JTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 77 limitations. The freedom recognised by Artidc 301 is enforceable. A Enforceability is a( the behest of an individual. The freedoms guaranteed by Article 301 arc enforceable at the inslance of individuals who arc aggrieved by state action. Thus, a distinction hctwcen Article I 9(1)(g) and Article 301 on the basis of the former reflecting an individual right as opposed to a collective entitlement B nnder the latter may not be completely accurate. Though, one is an enforceable fundamental right of a citizen while the other is a rccop.nition of the free. flow of trade, commerce and intercourse, hotb in essence are enforceable, and enforceable at the hehcst of aggrieved in!livid1t;1ls. ll'ara 106]1570-C-Ul c Taxation :rnd Federalism S.1 The doctrine ol' the basic structure of tht lndian Constitution has evolved to incorporate federalism as one of its integral features. The guarantee that trade, commerce and intercourse shall he free throughout the territory of lndia is D subject to the provisions of Part Xlll. The meaning of the expression "thrnughout the territory of India" is elucidated by Article 1 of the Constitution which stipulate!; that "India, that is Bharat, shall be a lJnion of Sh!tes". The Union which the Constitution postuiatcs is .defined in terms of a pol;tic;.l union and an economic uniou which brought together the erstwhile E 1>rovinccs of British India and the princely states. Th;: fn.•edom under Article 301 comprehends, the free movement of goods, sen ices, persons and capital. These are essential ingredients in the creation of a common market as an incident of an economic union. The freedom under Article 301 is not absolute for, the constitutional guarantee is subject to the provisions of Part XIII. The provisions of Article 302 to Article 304 bring about a balance hctwecn the guarantee of lrecdom on one hand and legislative control over trade and commerce on the other hand. While doing so, those articles define lhe powers of Parliament :md the ~tate legislatures. while subJecting then; to restraints that arc intended to preserw the power of rc1~uiating trade and commc1·ce. !Paras 109, 1101[572-C-F] 5.2 While the Constitution docs in that sense subordinate the freedom under Article 301 to the provisions of Part XIII, it H

78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I0 S.C.R.

A would not be correct to read the provisions of Part XIII in isolation. Part XIII is an integral element of the Constitution, but so are the other Parts under which executive and legislative powers are constitutionally conferred upon the structures of governance in the Union and the States. While construing the provisions of the Constitution it is necessary to construe the text in the context B of the organic nature of the constitutional document. The linkages between various Parts of the Constitution contribute to the creation of a composite whole. No segment of the Constitution can he read in isolation. The scheme of the Constitution must hence be understood having regard to its history, text and context. c Words of the Constitution "cannot be read in isolation and have to be read harmoniously to provide meaning and purpose". The judgment of Justice Gajendragadlrnr, speaking for the majority in Atillbari, however construed the language of Article 30 I to mean that the guarantee of freedom wus subject only lo the provisions D of Purt XIII. This docs not constitute an appropriate approach to constitutional interpretation since it leads to a construction of Part XIII in isolation from other provisions which have a significant bearing on the nature of the freedom and its relationship with the structures of governance. To consider the guarantee under Article 301 as being subject only to Article 302 E to 304 overlooks the rclationshiIJ of Part XIII with other provisions of the Constitution. l<'n•cdom is integral to that relationship. [Paras Ill, 112, 1131[572-G-H: 573-A-B, F-G; 574- AJ Kihoto Hollolwn v. Zadzill!w 1992 (I) SCR 686: (1992) F Supp 2 SCC 651; T.lvf.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 : (2002) 8 sec 481 - relied on. 5.3 In interpreting the text of the Constitution, the Court must construe the text in a manner that would preserve the G carefully crafted balance betwem the Union and the states. Where the language of the text permits, the effort of constitutional interpretation should be to ensure that the states arc not subordinated to the Union in an·as reserved to them. Yet it is equally a matter of constitutional doctrine that \Yherc a particular H

JINDAL STAINLESS LID. v. STATE Of HARYANA 79 provision (such as the pro\'iso to Article 304(b) imposes a specific requirement (assent of the President before a Bill is introduced in the state legislature) which subjects the legislative power of the states to constitutional limitations, it would not be open to the Court to ignore the plain meaning and effect of such a provision. The text of the Constitution cannot be subverted on the basis of an abstract notion or hypothesis. While creating a federal structure, the draftsmen of the Constitution were conscious of the need for preserving a political and economic Union. lf, as a part of that constitutional scheme, the text of the document has incorporated specific provisions, they must be given their plain meaning and effect. It would riot be open to the c Court to dilute the meaning of the text on the basis of a priori considerations. !Para 120]1578-E-ll; 579-A] State of West Bengal v. Union of India [1964] 1 SCR 371; Special Reference 1 of 1964 (1961) I SCR 413; S.R. Bommai 1·. Union of India 1994 (2) SCR 644 : 1994 D p) SCC 1; JTC Umited v. Agricultural Produce Market Commillee and Ors. 2002 (1) SCR 441 : (2002) 9 SCC 232; Ku/dip ."lawU" 1·. Union of" Jndia 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 1 : (2006) 7 SCC 1 - referred to. Taxing powers E

Article 245 and constitutional limitations 6.1 Article 245 of the Constitution provides for the extent of laws made h:v Parliament and the legislatures of the states. Clause 1 of Article 245 enables Parliament. "subject to the F pn1visio11s of this Constitution" to make laws for the whole or an;. part of the territory of India and for the legislature of a state to make laws fm- the whole or any part of the state. Article 245 is the fountainhead of legislative power. It makes legislative powers subject to constitutional limitations. The distribution of legislative powers is embodied in Article 246 which deals with the subject G matter of laws made by the Parliament and by the state legislatures. Parliament has exclusive powers to make laws with n:specl to mattc.-s cnnrnerntcd in List I of the Seventh Schedule. Subject to the law making powers of Parliament in List .I, the H

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12016] 10 S.C.R.

/\ Icgisl:.it urc of a state has exclusive power to enact Jaw for the state with respect to any of the mat1ers enumerated in List 11. Parliament and the state legislatures have concurrent powers to enact legislation in i-cspecl of matters enumerated in List Ill. Article 245 is the source of legislative power. Article 246 B distributes legislative powers between Parliament and the state legislatures on the basis of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule. Article 245, in the conferment of legislative powers upon Parliament and the state legislatures makes them subject to the provhions of the Constitution. The power to enact laws is a manifestation of sovereignty. The Constitution while conferring c legislative powers upon the Union and the states makes them subject to constitutional limitations. The sovereignty of the legislature is subject to the norms of the written constitution. The power to tax is subsumed in legislative power. Like all legislative power, fiscal legislation is subject to the mandate of D the written constitution. This is the plain consequence of the opening words of Article 245(1) under which the conferment of legislative powers is made subject to the provisions of the Constitution. [Paras 121, 122]1579-B-Il; 580-AI 6.2 The entries in the legislative lists of the Seventh Schedule arc not sources of legislative power but only define the subjects or heads of legislation entrusted to the law making competence of Parliament and the state legislatures. Read together, Articles 245 and 246 confer legislative power upon the Union and the states in the first place and distribute that powe1· between them to enact legislation on the fields of legislation r entrusted to their competence. Though Article 245 is made expressly subject to the provisions of the Constitntion while there arc no such similar words in Article 246, both Articles arc subject to the other provisions of the Constitution. The language of Article 245 which subjects the conferment of legislative power to constitutional provisions is a recognition of the doctrinal principle that all constitutional power vesting in the organs of the state is subject to const.itutional limitations. The Constitution which entrusts power conditions the entrustment to the. observance of constitutional safeguards and limitations. All legislative power 11 is subject to constitutional limitations. The limitations on the

JINDAL STAlNLESS l:l'D. v. STATE OF HARYANA 81 exercise of k ;,:islativc power emanate from (i) guarantees of A freedom under l'arl IJJ of the Constitulion containing fundamental rights; (ii) the requirement that the law making authorily must possess legislative competence to enact a law on the subject on which it legislates; and (iii) other constitutional limitations. Part XIIJ of the Comlitulion is one of those constitutional limitations. B The constitutional limitation emanating from Part XIII arises from the recognition which it contains of the guarantee of free trade, commerce and intercourse. Hence the first premise upon which legislative powers are conferred upon and distributed between the Centre and the states is that though the enactment of law is a manifestation of sovereignty, law making authority under the c Indian Constitutior. is subject to constitutional restraints. Absolute power does not dwell in any constitutional authority which is subject to a written constitution. The legislative entries in the Lists of the Seve11th Schedule to the Constitution delineate general fields of legislation separately from taxing heads. In the D Union List taxing entries are contained from Entries 82 to 92C. The residual entry, Entry 97 deals with m"atte1·s not enumerated in the state or concurrent lists, including any tax not mentioned in either of those lists. In the state list taxes are comprised in Ii:ntrics 46 to 62. Fees are dealt with under separate heads: in E Entry 96 of List I, Entry 66 of Lisi II and Entry 47 of List UI. !Paras 123, 125, 126][580-B-D; 581-B-F] StatP of' Kera/a and ors. v. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd and Anr. 2012 (4) SCR 448 : (2012) 7 SCC 106 - referred to. F Sovereignty and constitutional limitations 7.1 The legislative power of the states to impose taxes is subject, in general, to the same constitutional parameters which govern the exercise of all legislative power. The containment of legislative power follows from three constitutional precepts. First, G legislation is valid if it is enacted by a legislature which has competence to enact law on the subject Second, the enumeration of fundamental rights by Part Ill of the Constitution operates as a restraint on the sovereign power vesting in the legislatures to enact law. Article 13. of the Constitution stipulates that the state H

SUPREME C:Ol 'RT REPORTS /2016] 10 S.C.R.

A shall not cnad law which violates the freedoms guaranteed by the Chapter on fundarnental rights. A law whether made before or after the advent of the Constitution is void to the extent of its inconsistenc\ with Part XIII. Third, other constitutional limitations or restrictions may contain the law making power including in ll the field of taxation. f Para 1301f585-E-F, G-H; 586-A-B] 7.2 ln the field of taxation, I.he containment of legislative powers vesting in the states may take place through provisions which are in the nafure or: (i) abstraction; (ii) eclipse; and (iii) limitations or rest1·ictions. These categories arc convenient reference points for understanding the source of constitutional restrictions. An illustration of an abstn1ctio11 of legislative power is contained in Entry 54 of the State List which provides for taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, subject to the provisions of Entry 92(A) of the Union List. Entry 92(A) of the U11ion List was introduced hy the Sixth amendment to the I) Constitution in 1956 to provide for taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, where such sale or puHhase takes place in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. Under U'.nt1·y 54 of the State List as it originally stood, the states possessed an unfctlered area for imposing taxes on till' sale or purchase of goods othc1· than newspapers. Article 286 stipulates that a state law shall not impose or authorize the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of goods, where the sale or purchase takes place outside the state or in the course of import or export from or outside the territoi-y of India. Arlicle 286(1) provides an express har. Article 269(3) empowers Parliament by law to formulate principles for determining when a sale or purchase or consignment of goods takes place in the course of inter-state trade or c1immercc. Parliament, in exercise of its powers under Article 269(3) enacted the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. Sections 14 and 15 of that Act provide a list of goods of special importance, the manner of imposing taxes and the restrictions on the power of imposing taxes. The second source of eontainment on the legislative powers of the states in the area of taxation is Article 253 of the Constitution under which Parliament, notwithstanding anything contained in the earlie1· provisions of Chapter 1 of Part H XI is entrusted with the power to enact legislation for the entire

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 83 territory of 1.ndia for implementing a treaty, agreement or convention with one or more countries or to implement a decision at an international conference association or other body. The non- nhstanlc provision of A1·ticlc 253 operates in relation to Articles 245 to 252. Hence, the legislative powers of the stales including in the area of taxation may be eclipsed where Parliament has enacted a law to effectuate India's international obligations in pursuance of Article 253. The third source of constitutional containment on the legislative power of a state is in the form of limitations of which Clause 3 of Article 286 provides an illustration. Under Clause 3, Parliament provides the restrictions and conditions in regai·d to "the system of levy, rates and other c incidents of tax" upon which a law enacted by a state providing for a tax of the nature specified in sub-clause (a) and (b) is subject. Sub-clause (a) deals with a tax on the sale or purchase of goods declared to be of special importance in inter-state trade or commerce by a law enacted b)' Parliament. Sub-claus~ (b) deals with a tax on the sale or purchase of goods falling under sub- clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Article 366(29A). Among other things, a tax on contracts for hire purchase and involving transfer of the righ1 to use goods is subject to the restrictions and conditions which arc provided by a law enacted by Parliament in regard to the system of levy rates and other incidents of tax. The constitutional containment of the legislative powers of the states also originates in the provisions of Part Xlll which enable Parliament and the state legislatures to impose restrictions on inle1·-state trade or commerce subject to defining parameters. !Paras 131-135H586-C-E, G-ll; 587-A-Gl F

Rai Ramkrislrna v. State of Bihar 1963 AIR 1667: 1964 SCR 897; Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh v. State of UP & Am: 1963 SCR 220: AIR 1962 SC 1563; G Amrit Ban{/.\pati Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 1992 (2) SCR 13 : (1992) 2 SCC 411; Dena Bank v. Bhikhahhai Prahhudas Parekh & Co. and Ors. 2000 (3) SCR 509 : (2000) 5 SCC 694 ; Maharaj Umeg Singh v. State of Bomhay, 1955 SCR164 : AIR 1955 1-1

SUPREME ('OURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

/\ SC 540; Finn Bansidhar Premsukhdas v. State of Rajasthan 1966 Suppl. SCR 81 : AIR 1967 SC 40; Thakur Jagmmath Baksh Sinp,h v. United Provinces (1946) FCR 111 - referred to.

All taxes are not impediments

8. The free movement of goods, services, persons and capital requires the existence of public order and conditions which allow for trade and commerce to take place unhindered. Neither trade nor commerce can flourish amidst violence, unrest and social c disorder. Taxes provide revenue for the state to sustain manifold activities which are geared to providing conditions of social order. Tax revenues form an essential part of the requirements necessary for states to govern. Taxes are required by Article 265 to be imposed by a law enacted by Parliament or the state D legislatures. Without the power to raise revenues, the ability of the state to create conditions requisite for trade and commerce to exist would be denuded. Hence, as a matter of first principle it cannot be postulated that taxation in whatever form is a burden on trllde, commerce and intercourse and that every tax necessarily F hinders trade. Such a wide construction cannot be accepted simply because by raising revenues through the means of taxation, the state provides a political and legal order based on the rule of law where contractual transactions can be executed effectively. fPara 13911589-G-IJ; 590-A-C]

F Indian Express Newspapers (Bomhay) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. etc. 1985 (2) SCR 287 : (1985) I sec 641; Government of Tamil Nadu v. A!w/Jilo Matam 1987 (1) SCR 232: 1987 (1) SCC 38; G A II Bihar Christian Schools 'Association v. State of Bihar (1988) l SeC 266; Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Assn. of India etc. v. Union of India & Ors. 1989 (2) SCR 918 : (1989) 3 sec 634; Express Hotels Private Lim ired 1·. State of Gujarat and Anr. 1989 (2) SCR 893 : (1989) 3 sec 677; Pankaj Jain Agencies V. Union of H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 85

India 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 602: 1994 (5) SCC 198; A Vrajlal Manila/ & Co. v. State of M.P (1986) Suppl. 1 SCC 201; 7/Je Bengal Immunity Company v The State of Bihm· (1953) 1 BL.JR 48; NMDC v. State of 1'11l1jah 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 472: (1997) 7 SCC 339 - referred to. B

Articles 302, 303 and 304

9. Articles 302, 303 and 304 provide for restrictions on trade and commerce. The marginal note to each of the three articles specifically contemplates restrictions on or with regard c to trade and commerce. The marginal note to Article 302 refers to the power of Parliament to impose restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse. Under Article 302, Parliament is empowered by law to impose restrictions in the public interest on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse between one state and another or within any part of the territory of the India. Consequently, Parliamentary power under Article 302 to impose restrictions is not only confined to inter-state trade but extends to restrictions within any part of the territory of India. However, Article 303 imposes a limitation both on Parliament and the state legislatures. Under Article 303, neither Parliament nor the legislatu1·e of a state can enact a law giving or authoring the giving of a preference to one state over another or making or authorising the making of discrimination between one state and another, by virtue of any entry relating to trade and commerce in any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule. Article 303 has a non-obstante provision which overrides Article 302. The non-obstante clause in Article 303 is evidently inapposite in relatioJJ' to the legislature of a state because Article 302 does not apply to a state legislature in the first instance. Evidently the non-obstante provision can have meaning only in relation to Parliament because it has the effect of stipulating that the power of Parliament to impose restrictions in the public interest under Article 302 is subJect to the principle of non-discrimination and non-grant of preferences to one state over another under Article 303. The effect of the norm which Article 303 enunciates is that neither Parliament nor H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I 0 S.C.R.

i\ the legislature of a state can grant preferences while enacting law to one state over another or make any discrimination. Article 303 concludes with the words "by virtue of any entry relating to trade and commerce in any of the lists in t.he Seventh Schedule." I Paras 143, 14411592-B-Hi

M.P V Su11deroramia i.: Stale of Andhra Pradesh 1958 SCR 1422: AIR 1958 SC 468; State o/iv!adras 1·. N.K. :Vataraja 1v!mlaliar 1968 SCR 829: AIR 1969 SC 147; State o/ Jli111i! Nadu and Others l'. Sitolaxmi Mills and C Others 1974 (3) SCR 1 : 1974 (4) SCC 408 - referred to.

Construing A1·ticle 304

D 10. The use of the non-obstantc clause in Article 304 in its application to Article 301 has been debated. That is because while Article .:rn1 makes the guarantee of freedom of trade and commerce subject to the other provisions of Part XIII, Article 304 commences with a non-obstantc provision which operates notwithstanding what is contained in Article 301. A reasonable construction or meaning would have to he attributed to these two prnvisions. So construed, Article 304, in its non-ohstante prn,·ision, must mean that it would permit what is contemplated by Clauses (a) and (h) even though it would otherwise be within the ambit of the freedom guaranteed hy Article 301. Similarly, in I' its application to Article 303, the 11011-obstante clause in Article 304 indicates that despite the prohibition that is contained in Article 303, the state legislature is empowered to do something of the nature that falls within the ambit of the provision. The 11011- obstantc provision of A1·ticlc 304 governs both Clauses (a) and (h) that follow. By virtue of Clause (a), the legislature of a State can, despite the provisions of Article 301, impose a non- discriminatory tax. The power to impose a tax is not conferred h~· Clause (a) of A1·ticle 304 hut is a power which is traceable to the legislative power of the states under Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution read with the legislative entries in the State List. II

.JINDAL STAINLESS !TD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 87

Article 304(a) is a clear indication that though a tax may constitute A a restriction within the meaning of Article 301, the imposition of a non-discriminatory tax is permissible to the state legislature. Article 304(a) lifts an embargo that would otherwise have existed hut for the non-obstantc provision. Article 304(a), however, mandates that a tax which is being imposed on goods imported B from other States or Union territories must be a tax to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that state arc subject. Moreover, the tax shall not discriminate between goods that are imported and goods so manufactured and produced. !Para 15611603-B-C] c So11rh !11diu11 Cmporation (P) Ud. v Board of" Revenue (1964) 4 SCR 280; State of' Bomhay v. The united Alo/ors (India) Ltd. (1953) 4 SCR 1069; Clwndavarkar Sita Raina Rao v. Asha/ala S. Guram 1986 (3) SCR D 866 : 1986 (4) SCC 447; South India Corporation v. Board of Revenue (1964) 4 SCR 280 - referred to . .Justice G P Singh in his seminal treatise, 'Principles of S10111101:r Interpretation' 14th Edition - referred to. E

Conjunctive or dis_junctive : 'may'; 'and'

11. l Article 304 provides that the legislature of a state may by law (a) impose a non-discriminatory tax as provided in clause (a); and (b) impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of F t.radc, commerce or intercourse. The npression 'may' in the prefatory part of Article 304 has to be read together with the expression 'and' which separates clauses (a) and (b). The use of the expression ·may' is indicative of the intent that the legislature of a state is not bound to levy an impost on goods imported from other states (though if it does so, the tax has to be non- G discriminatory). Similarly, the state legislature has an enabling power to impose restrictions under clause (b). The legislature 'may' do so. It has the discretion whether to impose a tax or to impose a rcsfriction and is not bound to do so. The word 'and' is H

88 SUPREME COURT RF.PORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A normally used in the conjunctive sense. However, this is not always the case. Coupled with the use of the expression 'may, the expression 'and' in Article 304 should be construed to mean and/or. In other words, the legislature of a state may take recourse to both clauses (a) and (h) of Article 304 or either of them. In the context of Article 304(a) the use of the expression 'may' in the prefatory part together with 'and' which separates clauses (a) and (b) indicates that the true meaning and intent is conveyed by the joint and several and/or. The state legislature may impose a tax falling under clause (a) as well as a reasonable restriction falling under clause (b). Alternately it may impose one of them. (' These being enabling provisions, the legislature may not take recourse to either. However, when it imposes a tax and/or a restriction, the state legislature has to abide by the conditions of clauses (a) and (b) respectively. [Paras 158, 159, 160][604-G-Il; 605-A-C; 606-D-EJ D ..Statutorv /1Jte17Jretation ·· by Ruth Sullivan - referred to. Article 304(a) not the universe of taxation 11.2.J A discriminatory tax is prohibited by Article 304(a). There is intrinsic material in the constitutional text to indicate that Article 304(a) does not exhaust the universe of taxation for the purposes of Part XIII. First, Article 304(a) provides that the legislature of a state may by law impose on goods imported from other states or union territories any tax to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that state are subject. The ambit of dause (a) is a tax on goods, the origin of the goods being a state other than the state which is imposing the tax. Article 301 (over which the 11011-obstante clause contained in Article 304 operates) has a geographical coverage which extends throughout the territory of India. Article 301 guarantees the freedom of trade and commerce not only across state boundaries but equally freedom within any part of the territory of India. If the freedom of trade and commerce is restricted by a discriminatory tax - as Article 304(a) postulates is the case - the imposition of a discriminatory tax on internal movement within a state must by the same logic breach the freedom guaranteed by Article 301. H

JINDAL STAINLESS TTD. v. STAfE or HARYANA 89

Since Article 304(a) covers only a tax on goods imported from A other states, a discriminatory tax on goods which do not traverse state ho11nda1·ies would not fall within the ambit of Article 304(a). Yet it would offend Article 301. A state may conceivably have a .iustifica!ion in the public interest in doing so or for imposing such a tax and if it were to do so, it must meet the requirements of B Article 304(b ). lf Article 304 (b) were to be construed to not include taxes, such a course of action would be barred, however legitimate be the state interest. !Paras 162][607-B-E] 11.2.2 There is a second reason why the language and scheme of Part XI ll must lead to the conclusion that it is not only c discriminatory taxes of the nature contemplated by Article 304(a) which fall within the ambit of the Part. Article 304(a) only covers a tax on goods (goods imported from other states as seen above). A tax imposed by the state legislature otherwise than on goods, docs not fall within the ambit of Article 304(a). The taxing entries of List II of the Seventh Schedule include various taxes that fall D within the legislative competence of the state legislatures other than a tax on g,oods. Among the taxing entries of List II (entries 46 to 62) are several which deal with aspects of taxation of goods. Article 304(a) applies only to taxes on goods. A tax which is not on goods or on aspects bearing on goods is not governed by E Article 304(a). A discriminatory tax which is not on goods is not within the prohibition of that article. Similarly, Article 304(a) will not apply to a tax on passengers carried on roads or inland waterways under Entry 56. Since the ambit of Article 304(a) is a non-discriminatory tax on goods imported from other states, it is evident that this provision is not exhaustive even of those r discriminatory taxes which will offend Article 301. There are taxes which fall within the legislative competence of the states, other than on goods, which are outside the purview of Article 304(a). If those taxes impede the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse they would infringe Article 301 though they do G not fall within Article 304(a). Third, Article 302 has been held to enable Parliament to impose Central Sales Tax. The expression "restrictions" in Article 302 has been construed not to exclude a restriction by way of a taxing measure. If the expression 'restriction' for the purposes of Article 302 does not exclude a H

<)(} SUl'RFMF COURT REPORTS [2016) JO S.C.R.

/\ legislative measure by way of a fiscal imposition, i1 cannot evidently be excluded from the ambit of the phrase 'restrictions' in Article 304. [Paras 163, 164JJ607-F-II; 608-D-IIJ 11.2.3 Fourth, this conclusion is buttressed by the non- obstantc provision contained in Article 304. The plain meaning of the non-obstante provision is that state legislatures may enact legislation in exercise of their law making authority under A1·ticles 245 and 246, of the nature contemplated by clauses (a) and (b) of Article 304, despite the fact that such a legislative measure would otherwise fall within the ambit and purview of Article 301. The c non-obst:inte provision in Article 304(a) refers to Article 301. Obviously, unless something falls within the ambit of Article 301, there is no reason to incorporate the non-obstante clause in Article 304(a). Despite Article 301, it is permissible in view of Article 304(a). Article 304(a) lif1s the embargo. The use of 1he clause of s11hjeclio11 in Article 301 and the non-obstante provision in Article J) 304 have been criticised as a case of inartistic draftsmanship. A clause which makes a conslitutional provision or, for that maHe1·, a statutory provision subject to another makes the provision in which that clause is contained subordinate to the provision to whi.ch it is subjected. On the other hand, a non-obstante provision r; commencing with the word 'notwithstanding' is intended to indicate that the text in which the provision is contained overrides another. JI'aras 165, 16611609-A-E] 11.2.4 The guarantee of freedom under Article 301 is subject to Part XII I. Article 304 enables a state legislature in F the exercise of its legislative power (under Articles 245 and 246) to enact a law despite the fact that it may otherwise fall within the ambit of Articles 301 or 303. Article 303 contains the mandate that neither Parliament nor the legislature of the state can grant prcfc1·cnces to one state over another or discriminate between (; one slate and another hy virtue of the entries relating to trade and commerce in the lists of the ScYcnth Schedule. Article 303 poslulales (in n~lation lo Parliament) that the power confert"ed upon Padiarncnt under Article 302 to impose restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse, in the public interest between one state and another or over any part of the teuitory of II

JINDAL STAINLESS LJ'D. v. STATE OF l-lARYANA 91

India cannot he exercised so as to grant preferences or to discriminate between one state and another. However, this embargo is lifted by clause (2) of Article 303 when Parliament is dealing wilh a situation of scarcity of goods in any part of the territory of India. ln relation to the legislature of the state, Article 303(1) imposes the same mandate against the grant of preferences between states or the making of any discrimination. However, clause (2) of Article 303 docs not apply to the state legislatures. Clause (1) of Article 303 is a restraint on discriminating between one state over another or from granting preferences between them. Article 303(1) is akin to a provision in international trade parlance conferring a 'most favoured nation' treatment. Under c such an •mfn' clause, treatment extended to one nation state has to be extended to the other. Article 303(1) embodies a similar pl"ineiple inter .1·e bdween the states so as to ensure a uniformity of treatment between states when Parliament or the state legislatures enact a l:iw in exercise of their law making power. A D state legislature which enacts a law is required to confer a parity of treatment to other states and is prevented from granting preferences to one state over another or from making discrimination between one slate and another, by the operation of Article 303(1). Article 304(:i), however, allows the legislature E nf a state 1o impose a tax on goods imported from other states or union territories so long as the tax is one which is imposed on similar goods nrnnufacturcd or produced in that state. The clause nf subjection in Article 301 and the non-obstante clause of Article 304 can hence be harmonised. [Para 167)1609-F-H; 610-A-F] F

12. Article 306 as it was originally incorporated into the Constitution provided :i clear indicator tlrnt the founding fathers did not intend to use the expression 'restrictions' in conlrndistinction to taxes or duties on the import or export of goods bcl ween states. !Para 16911611-Fl G 13.1 Article 304(a) elaborates that a particular form of taxation - a non-discriminatory tax on goods -· shall not be construed to violate Article 301. But Article 304(a) is not exhaustive of the universe of taxation. Article 304(a) has three defining characteristics. The first is that the tax is a tax on goods. 1-1

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

The second is that it is a tax on goods imported from other states. The third is the non-discrimination norm in relation to similar goods produced or manufactured in the state. A tax which fails to meet the yardstick embodied in Article 304(a) will violate Article

301. But Article 304(a) cannot be a basis for holding that every fiscal measure (apart from a discriminatory tax) lies outside the puniew of Part XII I. For one thing, the rate of tax is but one clement of taxation. There arc other elements in a fiscal exaction including assessment, the machinery for collection and set offs and exemptions which can have an important bearing on whether the tax operates in a manner that impedes the freedom of c interstate trade and commerce. Moreover, a discriminatory tax otherwise than on goods, does not attract the provisions of Article 304(a). Finally, a non-discriminatory tax may also become an impediment on the freedom of trade and commerce where the tax is so high as to render it confiscatory. Hence, a discriminatory D fiscal imposition of the nature which offends Article 304(a) is illustrative of but not exhaustive of fiscal impediments on the freedom of trade and commerce. !Para 170][611-F-H; 612-A-C] 13.2. The Constituent Assembly, while adopting Article 304 incorporated a marginal note which describes the ambit of the F provision as : "restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse amongst states". The marginal note is a broad indicator of cc11,stitutional intent. It is a constitutional indicator of the position that a restriction on the freedom of trade and commerce can be fisi;al or non-fiscal in origin. The marginal note evidently utilizes the expression "restrictions" in relation to the entirety of the article. Though a marginal note cannot override constitutional text nor can it control the specific meaning of the words used in the text, it is a broad indicator or pointer to the meaning intended. For these reasons, it would be untenable to postulate as a general principle that it is only a discriminatory tax falling within the ambit of Article 304(a) that is subject to Part XIII of the Constitution. !Paras 171, l 72]1612-D-F] Tax legislation - .Judicial review and Part XIII Taxation and Part XII II 14.J A law which imposes a tax is not immune from

,--JDAL STAlNLFSS LTD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 93 conslitulional challenge merely because taxation is a manifestation A of the sovereign power of the slate or because there is a presumption that a tax is imposed by the legislature in lJUblic interest. Taxing legislation is sub,ject to constitutional restraints originating in lhe legislative competence of the legislature to enact lhc law, the guarantees of fundamental freedoms contained in B Part Ill and constitutional limitations originating in the provisions of the Constitution. !Para 1761[614-E-Fl The standard of judicial review 14.2 The standard of .iudicial review in relation to taxing legislation however recogni;~cs that there inheres in the C legislature the power to determine the ob,jects on which a tax should he levied and lo classify persons or properties for the purposes of the levy. Uthe classification is rational, a taxing statute cannot be challenged merely because different rates of taxation arc prescribed fo1· different categories of persons or objects. The D validity of a taxing statute cannot be challenged merely on the ground that the rate of taxation is excessive. However, if the statute is a colourable piece of legislation or a fraud on legislative power, ii would be open to challenge on the ground that while enacting the law, the legislature has adopted a cloak or devise to confiscate the property of a citizen who is taxed. But such a E conclusion cannot be reached merely on a finding that the tax which is imposed is unreasonably high or excessive. Conccpt.nally, the availability of judicial review in regard to taxing legislation is distinct from the standard of judicial review. Taxing legislation is nol immune from constitutional challenges based on a lack of legislative competence, a breach of fundamental rights or a violation of a constitutional limitation or provision. But the standard of judicial 1·eview in relation to fiscal statutes recognizes that lhe legislature must possess a wide latitude to classify persons or objects for the purposes of the levy. [Paras 177, 178]!614-G; G 615-A-D] Ramji/al v. Income Tax Officer; Mohindargarh (1951) 2 SCR 127; K111111athat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. The State of' Kera/a 1961 (3) SCR 77; Balaji v. Income Tax H

94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A Office1; S)1ecial !11vestigatio11 Officer 1962 (2) SCR 983; Chhotahhai Jethahhai Patel & Co. v. Union of India (1962) Supp. (2) SCR ] ; Raja Jagan11ath Baksh Singh i: State of' UP (1963) I SCR 220; Federation of' Hotel & Restaurant Assn. of flldia etc. v. Union of India & Ors. 1989 (2) SCR 918 : (1989) 3 SCC 634 - referred B to.

14.3 Taxation is indeed a manifestation of the sovereign power of the slak to raise revenues for public purposes. Bui the exercise of sovereignty is subject lo the constitutional limitations of a written constitution. Enactment of law by a law making body which possess a legislative competence over the subject maUer upon which it legislates is one of the constitutional limitations. The Constitution distributes legislative powers between the D lJ nion and States. \Vhile doing so it carves out fields of legislation which arc reserved to the Union and the States respectively. Legislative powers in relation to taxation are also distributed between the Union and the States. Uenee, all legislative power (of which the legislative power to impose a tax is a part) is subject to the distribution provided in the Constitution. Exercise of sovereign power is governed by the norms of a written Constitution. Taxing statutes, like other legislation, arc subject to co11stil11tio11al limitations including those contained in Part XIII. Hence, the general notion that taxation is a manifestation of sovereign pow('rs must also comprehend within that conceptualisation, the limitations which the Constitution imposes upon all legislative power of which the taxing power is a part. !Para 18011616-G-II; 617-A-C! 14.4 Article 245 mandates that all laws are subject to the provisions of the Constitution. From that basic premise, it must follow that the l~mitations on the taxing power are not only those which are referable to Part XII. A sub.ject such as taxation may be referable to a specific part of the Constitution, such as Part XII.. This does not mean that its validity must be assessed only with reference In the provisions of that Part. The provisions of the Constitution are not isolated 01· watertight compartments. 11

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 95

Constitutional provisions do not rest in silos.· As regards the third rationale undoubtedly, the revenues which the state raises from fiscal exactions generate resources which arc also utilized to augment trade and commerce. This, however, does not confer an immunity from a challenge that a law which is enacted in pursuance of the taxing 110wer breaches specific provisions of the Constitution. [Paras 181, 18211617-D-F'] 14.5 While the concept of public purpose is implicit in tax law, it is also implicit in all legislation which is presumed to be in the public interest. Yet the presumption of constitutionality or of legislation being in the public interest docs not confer a protection or immunity against a specific challenge on the ground that it violates a constitutional limitation such as that originating in legislative competence, the fundamental rights or constitutional proYisions. !Para 18311617-G] Presidential sanction : the proviso to Article 304(b) D

15. Article 303 prohibits both Parliament and the legislature of a state from enacting laws granting preferences to one state over another or making discrimination between one state over another. Article 303(2) makes an exception in respect of Union legislation enacted to deal with a situation of scarcity of goods in any part of the territory of India. The prohibition contained in clause 1 of Article 303 is, hence, lifted in the case of Parliament by clause 2. In the case of a state legislature, Article 303(1) is attracted where it grants preferences or makes a discrimination between one slate and another. Article 304 in its non-obstante clause refers inter a!ia to Article 303. Consequently, where a state legislature seeks to enact legislation granting a preference to one state over another or to make a discrimination of the nature referred to in Article 303(1), it must comply with the requirements of a Presidential sanction under the proviso to Article 304(b ). Where the law enacted by the state legislature would result in a G preference or discdmination prohibited under Article 303(1), the embargo can be lifted upon obtaining the previous sanction of the President under the proviso to Article 304(b ). [Paras 185, 186]1618-D-G] H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 l 6J l 0 S.C.R.

,\ Article 304(a) : The principle of non-discrimination

16. While understanding Article 304 (a), this Court has to analyse the meaning of the expressions (i) 'goods imported from other states'; (ii) 'any tax to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that state m·e subject'; and (iii) 'so, however, as I~ not to discriminate between goods so imported and goods so manufactured'. \Vhilc defining the meaning of these cxp1·cssions, judici:1l 1·cview is confronted with the basic question of when Article 304(a) would apply and the situations in which the requirement of a non-discriminatory ta1' is fulfilled. An important aspect of (' Article 304(a) is whether it permits a classification by the state legislature based on the need to achieve the economic development of the state. If development is a legitimate priority, to what extent docs Article 304(a) condition the power of the state legislature to encourage the growth of its own industries by the grant of incentives. rebat.es and exemptions through fiscal !) legislation'? !Para 18711618-11; 619-B-D]

5;1ate of Madhava Pradesh v. Ahdeali 1963 SCR 704 : AIR 1963 SC I 237; Firm .L TB. lvlehtah Majid v. State Ji of :\1adrm· (1963) Suppl. (2) SCR 435; A Hajee Abdul Shakoor i: State of' i'v!adms 1964 AJR 1729: 1964 SCR 217; State of Madras v. :V.K. Na/arajo Muda!iar (1968) 3 SCR 829; Ka!wmi Stores v. l/1e State o/Orissa (1966) 1 SCR 865; Srat<' ofKemlc1 v..·1.B. Ahdul Khadir (1970) I SCR 700; Ra/Ian Lui de Co. v. The .·1ssessing Authority ( 1969) 2 SCH 544; V G11ruviah .Vaid11 and Sons v. State of fomi! Nadu 1977 (1) SCR 1065 : 1977 (1) SCC 234; Stale of Kamawka v. Hansa Cmporation 1981 (I) SCR 823 : 1980 (4) SCC 697; Wes/Un Electronik.I· '" Slate of Gujarat 1988 (3) SCR 768 : 1988 (2) SCC 568; Video Electronics v. State al Punjab 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 731 : (1990) 3 SCC 87; Shree Mahavir Oil Mi11s v. State of J&K 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 356 : 1996 (11) sec 39 ·- referred to.

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 97

Article 304(a) and reasonable classification A 17.l Does Article 304(a) prohibit a state from making a reasonable classification? Article 303 contains a prohibition on the legislature of a state granting a preference to one state over another and for making a discrimination. Article 304 operates, inter alia, as an exception to the norm contained in Article 303 as B a result of its 11011-obsta11te provision. Under clause (a) of Article 304 a state may impose on goods which are imported from other states "any tax" to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that state are subject. This is followed by the further requirement that the imposition of such a tax shall "so however'' C not discriminate between goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced. The principle which underlies clause (a) of Article 304 is non-discrimination between goods imported from another state and goods produced or manufactured within. Clause (a) enables the state legislature to impose a tax on goods imported, in the exercise of its legislative power, so long as that tax is imposed also on similar goods manufactured or produced within. The latter part of clause (a) which contains a mandate against discrimination must have some meaning. In drafting the provision, the founding fathers evidently did not confine it merely to a norm providing a parity of taxes between imported goods and similar goods produced or manufactured within. While stipulating that "any tax" to which similar goods produced or manufactured in the state are subject can be imposed on goods imported into the state from other states, clause (a) contains the mandate that there should be no discrimination between goods, F I hat ar·c imported and goods that are manufactured within. The .iudgmcnt in Video Electronics construed Article 304(a) as not precluding a state from taking steps to promote the growth of its own nascent industry. Jn the case of the State of Punjab, the defence of the State was that a reduced rate of sales tax was imposed to boost the electronics manufacturing industry and to G stop existing industrial units shifting to neighbouring states, particularly having regard to "the prevailing peculiar circumstances of PunJab". Moreover, while states, such as GuJarat and Maharashtra were fully developed industrial states, Pun.iah at that stage was backward in terms of industrial growth. H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016/ 10 S.C.R.

/\ These factors undoubtedly weighed wilh this Court in sustaining the notification. !Para 207] f636-E-H; 637-A-D] 17.2 A state docs have a legitimate concern and interest in ensuring the growth and development of its own industry. Levels of indnstrial growth and economic development arc not uniform Ii across the countr~'· A state legislature can have a legitimate interest, in the exercise of its law making power, to ensure balanced development and growth of its industry, particularly, in the nascent stage of industrial development. Yet, while doing so and granting incentives the legislature or as its delegate, the C state government must ensure that the grant of incentives is carefully structured so as not to defeat the underlying spirit and object of Article 304(a). Moreover, when the grant of such an incentive is challenged, it is for the state to justify it with reference to circumstances which have a bearing on legitimate state interest. [Para 208][637-D-Ff I) Formal and substantive equality 18.J Equality and non-discrimination are elements of the same universe. Equality has both a formal and substantive content. In a formal sense, equality perceives of governance under the same legal regime and the application of the same legal principles. Uniform application of law fulfills the norm of formal equality. Substantive equality looks beyond formal equality. That which may satisfy the requirements of formal equality may be inadequate and insufficient to meet the vision of substantive equality. S11bsta1ifive equality recognises that there are histories F of discrimination based on social background, gender and access to resources. They determine the pursuit of opportunity. Hence, formal equality may not necessarily result in just outcomes. Treating all individuals alike may perpetuate deprivation and denial of economic opportunity to those for whom the social order· G has not provided equal access to education or to the resources necessary for economic advancement. Hence, substantive equalit~' is premised on the foundation that in order to produce just outcomes and a real equality between individuals who are unequally situated, the legal regime must comprehend an understanding of their past histories of discrimination, disability H

JINDAL STAINLESS J;l'D. v. STATE OF HARYANA 99 and injustice. !Para 209]!637-G-ll; 638-A-C] A 18.2 Regions within a nation arc not equal in a real sense in terms of economic advancement and social development. Typically, economic development has spread along areas which dcvclo1>cd around the availability of infrastructure and resources. As ports and rnilways developed over the last century and a half, H the benefits of development permeated to regions where economic opportunity was available. Yet, other areas of the country have remained in a state of comparative under-development as a result of circumstances such as geographical isolation and the absence of developed means of communication. Many regions have suffered from the absence of education and unavailability of access to health and sanitation. Social deprivation and discrimination have been the defining characteristic of large swathe8 of the nation. In this background, substantive equality like its mirror image-non-discrimination-construes the need for development in terms of mitigating regional histories of suffering and strife, and of denial, deprivation and discrimination. !Para 210)1638-D-F] 18.3 Article 304(a) is an amalgam of formal as well as substantive norms of equality. At a formal level, the provision requires that when a state imposes a tax on imported goods, the tax must likewise be imposed on similar goods which are manufactured or produced in the state. Parity of tax between domestic goods produced and manufactured in a state with those which are imported from other states is the first and formal requirement. But beyond this, Article 304(a) brings into focus substantive principles by embodying a norm of non-discrimination in its latter stipulation. Non-discrimination in a substantive sense requires a level playing-field. Two states in the nation may not be comparable in terms of social development and economic advancement. One state may be industrialised with a growth of capital investment in urban infrastructure while another state may be predominantly agricultural. Article 304(a) does not prohibit a state from taking steps that are necessary for development and growth within its territories. [Pua 211]1638-G-ll; 639-A-BJ l 00 SUl'REMF COURT REPORTS [2016J 10 S.C.R.

A Produclion and manufacture within the home state

19. Another aspect which needs close analysis is whether under Article 304(a), it is necessary that a state must actually produce or manufacture goods similar to goods imported from other states which arc sought to he taxed. The crucial words are 13 "any tax to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that state arc subject". Art.icle 304(a) is not in the nature of a countervailing duty. The words "similar goods manufactured or llroduced" arc common to both Article 304(a) and Entry 51. llowever, the notion of a countervailing duty under Entry 51 (as c the judgment in Kalyani Stores explains) is intended to counterbalance the duty of excise levied on articles which arc produced or manufactured in the state. The countervailing duty is imposed on articles which arc produced or manufactured elsewhere in India. Jn the context of a countervailing duty, this Court in Kalyani Stores held that it postulates the actual production !) or manufacture of goods. This principle cannot be extrapolated to Article 31l4(a) where the tax which is imposed is not in the nature of a countervailing duty. Article 304(a), when it refers to a tax on goods, covers taxes on any aspect of goods which fall within the legislative competence of the state legislature. The latter part of Article 304(a) which contains the words "so however as not to discriminate between goods so imported and goods so manufactured and produced" is not a surplusage. The object of the latter part is to ensure that there is no discrimination between goods which are produced or manufactured in the state and goods which are imported from other states. If a particular rate of duty is levied on goods which arc produced or manufactured in a state, a higher rate of duty cannot be levied on goods imported from othe1· states. This, however, does not preclude a state from imposing a duty on imported goods where it does not actually produce or manufacture goods of that description. The G ohservations of this Court in Kalyani Stores were made in the context of a countervailing duty under Entry 51 of List IJ which is distinguishable. H a state does not manufacture or produce goods similar to the imported goods on which a tax is imposed, no question of disuimination will arise. The object of Article 11 J04(a) is to prevent disparity of freatment between goods that

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 101 are produced or manufactured in a state and goods which a state ·A imports from other states. \Vhere a state docs not actually prnduce or manufacture goods of that description, no issue of discdmination qua Article 304(a) would arise. !Paras 212, 213] [639- G; 640-D-ll; 641-A-DI Entry Tax/Octrois and Terminal taxes B

20. Entry 52 of List II to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution provides for " Taxes on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein." The legislative history surrounding the incorporation of Entry 52 is a significant guide to interpreting its provisions. Section SOA of the C Government of India Act, 1915 defined the powers of the provincial legislatures. In the Government of India Act, 1935, Entry 49 of the legislative lists (list 11) provided as follows: " Ccsses on entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use Ill" sale therein. Terminal taxes were placed in List I." In the D Government of India Act, 1935, Entry 49 used the expression "entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein", instead and in place of "octroi'' (as contained in the Devolution Rules under the Act of 1915). The Constitution incorporated Entry 52 in List ll in language which corresponds to Entry 49 of List II under the Government of India Act, 1935 E but with the difference that the expression 'taxes' is used instead of 'cesses'. Octroi was a tax levied on the entry of goods into areas which were administered by local bodies. When the draftsmen of the Constitution incorporated Entry 52 in List II, it was with the knowledge that the expression 'local area' had been used in the Government of India Act, 1935. Moreover, it could not but have been present to the minds of the framers that the expression ·octroi' which was used in the Devolution Rules had heen replaced subsequently in Entry 49 of List II in the Government of India Act of 1935 with a description rather than G label : the label being descriptive of the entry of goods into a local area; the purpose being consumption, use or sale therein. The exp1·ession 'therein' also indicates that the goods enter for the purpose of being used, consumed or sold within the local area. Entry 52 having used the expression "local area" rather H

102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 10 S.C.R.

/\ than "area", the Constitution did not intend that the entry of goods into just any area in the state would attract the entry. The entry had to be into a local area. A local area is an area administered by a local authority such as a municipality, a district or a local board or a panchayat or some other body constituted by ri law for administering the governance of local affairs in any part of the s1atc.f Paras 214, 215, 216, 218, 2201[641-E-F, G-11; 642-C- E; 643-B-C; 645-A-BJ

Ranga1ore Woo/1e11 Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. Corporation of the City ol Bangalore (1961) 3 SCR 707; Burnwh She1! Oil Storage and Distrilmtion Co. India /Jd. v. 771e !Jelgium Borough Municipality (1963) Supp. 2 SCR 216 - referred to.

D Enti-y taxes and Article 304(a)

21. The first significant as1>ect of the matter is the inter- play between entr-y tax legislation and Article 304 (a). The interface between the two arises hccause entry tax is levied on 1~ the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein. If the goods odginate in any other. state, the imported goods would upon entry into a local area he liable to entry tax since the charging event is the entry of the goods into the local area for consumption, use or sale. Issues of discrimination arise on whether similar goods produced or manufactured within the state arc sub_jcct to entry tax. Article 304 permits the state legislature to impose on goods importe~ from another state any tax to which similar goods produced or manufactured in the state arc sub.icct. The object is to ensure that there is no discrimination between the goods "so imported" and the goods "so produced (I or manufactured". The critical requirement of Article 304 (a) is that the tax must be origin neutral. Hence, where the state legislature levies an entry tax on goods entering a local area (without making any discrimination based on whether or not the goods originate in the state or are imported from outside) the mandate of Article 304(a) would be met. The issue is whether 1-1

JINDAL STAINLESS Ll'D. v. STA.TE Of HARYANA 103

Article 304 (a) would be breached by imposing an entry tax only upon goods that are imported from other states. Plainly, if a tax is imposed on goods which are imported from other states without subjecting similar goods produced or manufactured within the state to the tax, there would be a violation of Article 304(a). This would constitute an unconstitutional discrimination between goods imported from other states which are subject to I.ax and goods produced or manufactured within the state which are not subject to the levy. Such an act of discrimination may take place, for instance, in a situation where state law defines the entire area of the state as a local area or by incorporating a specific definition of the expression dealer or importer lo mean an importer of goods c from outside the state. For instance, goods may be subject to entry tax only when they cross the state boundary. Movement of goods exclusively within the state, is not sub.ject to entry tax. Alternative!~', the expression local area may be defined with reference to the entire state. If the legislation imposes a tax only D upon the entry of goods originating outside the state into the state, while goods produced and manufactured within the state are not sub.iect to the levy, this would constitute a hostile discrimination prohibited by Article 304 (a). [Paras 227, 228, 22911648-A-HJ E Meaning of 'Local area'

22. The Seventy-third amendment to the Constitution has incorporated Part IX which deals with Panchayats while the Seventy fourth amendment has incorporated Part IXA which deals with Municipalities. Article 243(d) defines Panchayats as f institutions of self-government constituted under Article 243(b) for the rural areas. Article 243(b} requires the constitution in eve1·y state of Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels. Article 24311 (a) empowers the legislature of a state by law lo authorize a Panchayat to levy, collect and appropriate such G taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance with such procedure and subject lo such limits. Article 243Q provides for the constitution of a Nagar Panchayat, a Municipal Council and a Municipal Corporation. Article 243X empowers the legislature of a state by law to authorize a Municipality to levy, collect and H

104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A appropriate such taxes duties, tolls and fees in accordance with such procedure and subject to such limits. With these amendments, local areas now have assumed a constitutional context and significance. In the judgment in Diamond Sugar Mills, the Constitution Bench emphasized that in i1sing the expression local area, the framers of the Constitution were aware of the previous legislative history and meant an area administered by a body (such as !Vlunicipalities, Panchayats or local board) constituted under the law for the governance of local affairs in any part of the stale. This statement of principle in the decision in Diamond S11Kar Mills now stands fortified in view of the c constitutional amendments brought by the insertion of Parts IX and IXA into the Constitution. A local area cannot be defined with reference to the entire state but will comprehend within the state, an area that is administered by a local body constituted under the law. [Paras 231, 232][650-B-G] j) Diamond Sugar Mills /Jd v. 7/1c Stale al Uttar Pradesh (1961) 3 SCR 242; Shaktik11mar M. Sancheti v. State of Maharashtra 1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 98 : 1995 (1) sec 351 -- relied on.

Sevcrability

23. A discrimination between goods imported from outside the slate and goods produced or manufactured within the state for the levy of a tax would be violative of Article 304(a). Where the state legislature has committed an act of hostile discrimination hy imposing a tax only upon goods originating outside the state upon their entry within it, the court must strike down such a provision which violates Article 304(a). The provision cannot be re-written by judicial interpretation to mean that the tax will be levied both on goods originating outside the state and goods originating within the state and entering a local area. Re-writing a legislative provision is impermissible in the exercise of judicial review. [Para 233][650-11; 651-C-E] Equality of lax burdens H 24.1 Article 304(a) refers to the imposition of any tax on

JINDAL STAINLhSS LTD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 105 goods. The provision is not either a source of legislative power nor docs it prescribe fields of legislation. The expression "any tax on goods" is of a generic nature and covers. all taxes which a state is competent to impose on any aspect of goods under Articles 245 and 246 read with List JI of the Seventh Schedule. The expression 'any tax' would mean any exaction in the nature of an impost or levy which the state legislature is competent to enact by virtue of its legislative powers. The expression 'any tax' must mean what it says: it means an~· levy which the state is constitutionally competent to legislate. The second aspect of Article 304(a) is the latter 1rnrt which provides that the state shall ad : "so, however, as not to discriminate between goods so c imported or goods so manufactured or produced." The fundamental reason fo1· the incorporation of this provision is to prohibit discrimination being practiced by the state against imported goods by embarking upon protectionist policies. A state cannot impose taxes in a manner that would make the goods of another state non-competitive so as to effectively bar the inflow of trade by utilizing fiscal exactions. Thirdly, the latter part of Article 304(a) is prefaced by the expression "so however". In \:Vords and Phrases, the expression however has been explained as indicating "an alternative intention, a contrast with a previous clause and a modification or it under circumstances". The latter part or Article 304(a) follows upon the first which enables the state to impose on goods which are imported from other states any tax to which the goods produced or manufactured within the stale arc subject. The latter part constitutes a positive re- aflirmation that in any case, at all events and at any rate there shall be no discrimination between goods manufactured or prnduced within the taxing state and goods imported from other states. This narrative is the dominant theme of Article 304 (a). Fourthly, an expression of some significance that is used in the latter part or Article 304(a) is "between". That expression has been employed so as to mandate that there shall be no discrimination between goods imported into the taxing state from other states and goods that are manufactured and produced within. The use of the expression "so" in the latter part is an obvious reference to the imported goods and the goods H

106 SUPREME COURT RFl'OJUS r2016J IO S.C.R.

A manufactured or produced within, referred to in the first part. The expression 'between' postulates that imported goods and local goods must be allowed a level playing field in the taxing slate. Imported goods from another state cannot be placed at a comparative disadvantage. The expression 'between' also signifies that goods produced or manufactured within the taxing stale should also not be discriminated against. In seeking parity of treatment, it is as much the obligation of the taxing state to ensure that there is no discrimination against goods originating in other states, as much as it is its concern to ensure that domestic goods ;ire not discrirninalcd against. The former is a matter of c constitutional obligation. However, il does not exclude a similar obligation and concern of the taxing state in respect of goods produced and manufactured within its territorial limits. Both must go hand in hand. Discrimination both in a positive manner against imported goods and a reverse discrimination against domestic I) goods arc within the ambit of Article 304(a). The fifth important principle which requires emphasis is that our Constitution does not embody a requirement that the state legislature while enacting a legislation must legislate separately in respect of each subject of legislation contained in List JL A law enacted by the state legislature imposing a fiscal levy may cover more than one subject of legislation falling within its legislative competence in List II. In contrast, Section 55 of the Australian Constitution mandates that there shall be one tax law on one subJect. The Indian Constitution does not. impose such a restriction on the states. Considered from a different perspective, "rag-bag" legislation F is constitutionally permissible under the Indian Constitution and it is open to a single enactment to draw sustenance from more than one entry which falls within the legislative competence of the enacting legislature. !Paras 240, 241, 242)[653-E-H; 654-A- G; 655-A-II; 656-A) Ujagar Prints (ll) v. Union of India 1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 770 : 1989 (3) SCC 488 - relied on. Wordl" and Phrases Permanrnl Eel. Vol. 19A , Oxford dictionary; P Ramanatha Aiyar's Lcrw Lexicon 4th Ed. Vol. III, Id. at p. 3134 -- referred to H

JINDAL STAINLESS LID. v. STAl'E OF HARYANA 107

24.2 As a matter of constitutional doctrine, there is no A restraint on the plenary powers of Parliament as well as the state legislatures which requires the legislative body enacting a statute to legislate only upon one head of legislation falling within its competence. The legislature can distribute or allocate its regulatory or law making requirements (both fiscal and non-fiscal) B in a manner which best sub-serves its needs and concerns. Once this be the position, its impact upon the interpretation of Article 304(a) is that it is open to the state legislature to have due regard to the equality of tax burdens, when it legislates to impose "any tax" so long as it does not breach the notion of non-discrimination as between goods that arc imported from other states and goods c which are produced or manufactured within. It is legitimately entitled to ensure that the tax burden should not discriminate between locally produced or manufactured· goods of that state and goods originating in other states. The substance must prevail over form. Once there is no constitutional necessity that the form in which legislation is enacted in India must cover only one legislative entry, the legislature is entitled to devise a law in a suitable manner which while being consistent with the norm of non-discrimination also preserves a parity of tax burden between goods imported and domestic goods. This is t.he foundation of the theory of equivalence. (Para 24311656-B-EJ 24.3 The burden of establishing that there is a discrimination against goods which are imported from other states lies on the person who sets up such a plea. In answering a plea of discrimination, it would be open to the state to establish that the legislative provision which it has enacted maintains the principle of non-discrimination between goods produced and manufactured within the state and goods imported from other states while at the same time bringing about parity in terms of tax burden between domestic and imported goods. Sales tax is referable to Entry 54 of List II ("taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, subject to the provisions of Entry 92A of List I"). Enlry tax is referable to Entry 52 of List II ("taxes on the entry of goods into a local a1·ea for consumption, use or sale therein"). Both sets of taxes fall within the competence of the state legislature. Tax11ble events under entries both entries are distinct H

108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A : in the case of one the sale of goods and in the case of the other, entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein. Both deal with separate aspects of the taxation of goods; the taxable events being proximate though distinct. The expression "any tax" recognises the full panoply of taxes on goods falling within List II. If a law can cover Entry 52 and Entry 54 of B List II, there is no reason to prohibit the state Jaw making authority from having due regard to the tax burdens imposed on domestic goods and goods imported from other states under entry tax and sales tax legislation, taken as a composite whole. "Any tax" docs not mean a tax under one ent.ry of List II as a discrete c and isolated legislation independent of any another entry. Any adjustment, exemption or set off based on the payment of sales tax may be intended to avoid double taxation and discrimination. Whether this objt1ct has been legitimately achieved by the enacting law is a matter to be determined on its interpretation I) and application. !Para 244]1656-F-G; 657-A-DJ 24.4 It is trite Jaw that every discrimination involves a differentiation hut every differentiation docs not implicate discrimination. The enquiry into whether a state has practiced discrimination against goods imported from other states will r: commence with an investigation into whether the state legislation has made any differentiation between the two sets of goods. This is not merely in terms of the rate of tax but there arc other important aspects including: proccdui-cs and machinery including aspects such as licencing, recognition and compliance: J\ieasure of the tax; and Exemptions or set offs; Beyond this enquiry, the F court would need to analyse the reasons for the differentiation and then to determine a~ to whether there has been a discrimination violative of Article 304(a). fP.ara 245)[657-D-GI Entry tax and imported goods G 25.1 Entry 83 of List I provides for "duties of customs including export duties". The taxable event referable to a Jaw enacted under Entry 83 of List l (in relation to an import customs duty) is the act of import by which goods originating in a foreign country ai·e hrought into India. Section 2(23) of the Customs Act, 1962 defines the expression import to mean "bringing into India II

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 109 from a place outside India". The ex1Jression imported goods is defined to mean "any goods brought into India from a place outside India" but so as not to include goods which have been cleared for home consumption. Section 2(26) defines the expression importer in relation to any goods at any time between their importation and the time when they arc cleared for home consumption, to include any owner or any person holding himself out to be an importer. !Paras 246, 24711658-B, D-E] 25.2. The Constitution distributes subjects of legislation including, amongst them, those covering fiscal matters between the Union and the States. The fields or subjects of legislation are elaborately defined so as to exclude the possibility of overlapping bet ween entries in List I and those in List IL Even where the fields may appear to overlap, they must be construed to be mutually exclusive. Entry 83 of List I and Entry 52 of List II have separate and distinct fields of operation. Entry 41 of List I deals with trade and commerce with foreign countries; import and export across customs frontiers; and definition of customs frontiers. The distribution of powers with reference to the taxing entries in List I and ll is mutually exclusive. The principle of law is hence well- settled : the taxing powers of the Union and the states are mutually exclusive. [Paras 249, 250 and 2561[659-D-E, F-G; 663-G-H] E Province of' Madras l'. Messrs. Boddu Paidanna & Sons 1942 F.C.R.90; Governor General i11 Council v. Province ol Madras AIR (1945) PC 98; Kamptee, Union ol 111dia 1950 SCR 15 : AIR 1950 SC 11; The Jiyajeerao Collon Mills Ltd v. State ol Madhya Pradesh (1962) Supp. 1 SCR 282; D G Gose & Co. (Agents) (P) J,td. v. State ol Kera/a and am'. 1980 (l)· SCR 804 : (1980) 2 SCC 410; Union of India v. HS Dhillon 1972 (2) SCR 33 : 1971 (2) SCC 779; Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh v. Stale of Rajasthan 1996 (2) SCR 145 G : 1996 (3) SCC 105; Mh RR Engineering Co. v. Zila Parishad Bareillv 1980 (3) SCR 1 : 1980 (3) SCC 330; Hoechst Pharmaceuticals v. State of Bihar (2004) 10 SCC 2011; Stare of Wesr Bengal" Kesoram Industries (1963) 3 SCR 787 - referred to. H

110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r10l6l IO S.C.R.

;\ 25.3 Entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein attracts the charging provision of entry tax legislation. The levy which is referable to Entry 52 of List II is attracted the moment the goods enter a local area for consumption, use or sail'. The Customs Act, 1962 has made a beneficial I\ provision for allowing goods to be deposited in public or private warehouses and for the clearance of goods for home consumption. These provisions cannot and do not dclract from the power of the state legislatures under Entry 52 nor do they denude the states from levying an entry tax once the taxable event under state law has occurred. The taxable event for the imposition of c a duty of customs is distinct from the taxable event in respect of an cnt1·y tax, which is the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use and sale therein. !Paras 257, 259]1664-E-G; 665-C-D I Direct and inevitable effect test D 26.l \Vhether taxes per .~e constitute an impediment upon the freedom of trade, comme1·cc and intercourse is an issue which has resu!lcd in two contrary positions, neither of which has been subscribed to in this judgment. At one end of the spectrum is the theory that all taxes impede the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. If this theory were to he accepted, the entire tax regime and the state taxing power would he controlled by Part XIII of the Constitution. The stales which arc sovereign within their own sphere would in the exercise of their constitutional powc1· to raise revenues by way of taxation be subject to the dgours of Part XII I. Such an extreme view is not acceptable either from the stand point of textual construction or from its consequence for the federal structure of the Constitution. All taxes do not impede the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. In fact, taxes provide the means by which revenues can be raised under a regime of law made by law making bodies at the federal and G state level. Absent a taxing power, the states would be bereft of revenues needed for maintaining order and governance. Trade, commerce and intercourse cannot survive in the abstract and without conditions of stability and order created by the state. Moreover. the revenues which arc made available to the state 11

JINDAL STAINLESS lTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 111 provide the basis for creating infrastructure and amenities, both direct and incidental, through which trade and commerce can effectively be transacted and can flourish. Hence, the extreme proposition that all taxes constitute a restriction or impediment upon trade has been eschewed. !Para 260]1665-E-H; 666-A-B) 26.2 At the other end of the spectrum lies the view that taxes do not constitute a restriction upon the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. If this view were to be accepted, Part XUI would have no role as a constit.utional limitation on taxing legislation save and exce1>t for discriminatory taxes of the kind that arc prohibited by Article 304(a). The position that Article c 304(a) constitutes the entire universe of taxation for the purpose of Part XIII has been rejected by this judgment on the ground that it suffers from fundamental fallacies and is contrary to the text of Part XIII. The grounds for so holding arc : Laws for the purposes of Part XIII must mean all laws and not to the exclusion of taxing legislation; The constitutional validity of Parliamentary D legislation imposing sales tax has been upheld on the basis of the provisions of Article 302 which enables Parliament to impose restrictions on the freedom of trade and commerce in the public interest. If taxing legislation is regarded as a restriction for the purposes of Article 302, there is no reason to exclude the same interpretation for the purposes of Article 304; Article 304(a) deals with a specific area of taxation - taxation of goods. The legislative powers of the state legislatures in List 11 of the Seventh Schedule enables them to tax persons, activities or things. Article 304(a) covers only the last category namely a tax on goods. It does not cover taxes 011 persons (profession taxes or luxury tax) or taxes on activities (betting and gambling); Article 301 guarantees free trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India. Inter-state trade as well as trade and commerce within a state is guaranteed. Article 304(a) covers only taxes imposed on goods imported from other states. Article 304(a) in other words docs not cover imposts on goods traversing within a state; Article 306 of the Constitution, as it stood 1>rior to its repeal contemplated that restrictions could take the form of duties and imposts; and The expression '1·cstrictions' has been utilized in Part XIII of the Constitution, as the provisions of Articles 302, 303, 304 and H

112 SUPREME COURT RFPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A 306 would indicate in a manner that would not exclude taxing legislation. jI'ara 261 j j666-C-II; 667-A-C] 26.3 Near!~', five decades of jurisprudence lrnving developed in support of the above principle, there is neither any rationale of constitutional principle or law that should leave this Court to make a departure from the position and to hold that taxes can in no circumstances constitute a restriction on the freedom of trade and commerce. Moreover, it has been accepted even as a matter of judicial precedent that taxation serves not only the purpose of raising revenues but is also a powerful c instrument of social control. The states and the Union in the exercise of their lcgislatin powers, utilise taxation not only as a means of raising revenues to support their developmental activities but also as a measure of achieving social objects. Whether the pursuit of those social objects or the pursuit of social regulation infringes upon the area of free trade and commerce cannot he decided a priori. The power of taxation is capable of being used in a manner which can constitute, in a given case, a restraint or impcdirncnt on the freedom of trade and commerce. In determining as to when taxes can constitute a restriction on the freedom of trade and commerce, the direct and immediate J'. effect test (as refined subsequently) provides a judicially manav;eable framework. The test of direct and immediate effect was enunciated in the judgments in Atiabari and Automobile Transport. The test is firmly entrenched as a part of our jurisprudence. jParas 262, 26311667-G; 668-A-DI F A liahari Tea Compa11v Ltd. v. The Stale of Assam (1961) I SCR 809; A11to111ohile 71-ansport (Rajasthan) Ud. 1·. The State of Rajasthan (1963) I SCR 491 - partly affirmed. Godfi·ey Philips India Ltd v. State ol U.P 2005 (1) SCR 732 : (2005) 2 SCC 515; R C Cooper v. Union o{ lndia (1970) l SCC 248; il K Gopalan v. The State of Madras (I 950) 1 SCR 88; Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union oflndia 1973 (2) SCR 757 : 1972 (2) SCC 788; Maneka Gandhi i·. Union of India 1978 (2) SCR 621 J 978 (1) sec 248 - referred to. H

JINDAL STAINLESS ITD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 113

26.4 In order to determine whether a law providing for the imposition of a tax constitutes a restriction on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, the principle that must be applied is whether the direct and inevitable effect or consequence of the law is to impede trade and commerce. The burden must lie on the person who alleges that such is the effect of the tax to plead and establish to the satisfaction of the court that the consequence which is alleged docs in fact exist. The direct and inevitable consequence for the purposes of Part Xlll of the Constitution is not the same as an infringement of the fundamental right to carry on an occupation trade or business under Article 19(l)(g). Under Article 19 (l)(g), it is the individual's right to c carry on trade or business which is guaranteed as a fundamental freedom. When a legislative measure seeks to curtail that freedom, the test is whether the right of the individual has been infringed or cviscernted. In the context of Part Xlll, the matter is looked at. from the perspective of trade and commerce as a D whole. Hence, in a case which falls under Part XIII of the Constitution it is for the petitioner to demonstrate and establish that the direct and inevitable effect of the law imposing a tax is to impede or restrict the flow of trade and commerce. The mere fact lhat the activity which is taxed is related to the flow or E movement of trade and commerce is not sufficient in itself to lead to the inference that a tax on that activity impedes or restricts il. Businessmen and traders must and do necessarily factor in lhc requirement of tax compliance as a part of an overall business plan. Hence, the mere fact lhat the lax is imposed with reference to an activity or thing which constitutes an aspect of trade or F comme1·cc is not sufficient in itself lead to the consequence that it is a restriction or impediment of trade and commerce. The petitioner with such a gi-ievance must cross the threshold of establishing in cogent terms before the Court that the direct and inevitable effect of the tax law is to constitute an impediment of G lrade and commerce. [Paras 265, 2661[670-C-H; 671-A] 26.5 In the context of entry tax, it is said on behalf of the petitioners that, there cannot be an entry into a local area of goods for consumption, use or sale unless the tax is paid. If the tax is not paid there can be no entry of goods. This is the basis for H

114 SUPREME C'. >URI REPOIUS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A urging that entry tax constitutes a direct impediment or restriction on the freedom of trade and commerce. This approach to the issue cannot be accepted. In the regulatory sphere, adherence to a regulatory statute may be made a condition precedent to engaging in a particular line of activity involving business, trade B or commerce. However, the requirement of compliance docs not by itself render the statute an impediment of trade and commerce. Similarly, in the fiscal arena, the fact that a tax liability has to be discharged as an incident of or a pre-condition for engaging in a line of activity does not by itself - and without actual proof of impediment or restraint - constitute a restriction. A conclusion (' that the inevitable consequence and effect of the legislation is to impede or restrict trade and commerce can be drawn only on the basis of demonstrable material that establishes that the impact of the tax is to result in that consequence. The burden to establish this is on the person who seeks to do so as a ground for relief. l) In a regulatory area as well as in a fiscal context, the legislature may prescribe the fulfilment of certain requirements subject to which a line of business, trade or commerce may be pursued. The fulfilment of those requirements may be set down as a condition precedent. A statutory regulator may for instance stipulate requirements of liccncing or registration before a E commercial activity which it regulates can be undertaken. Licencing or registration norms may stipulate financial and other requirements which-need to be fulfilled as a pre-condition for carrying on an activity or business. The fact that a statute allows for or prescribes such norms which constitute a condition F precedent is not reason enough to hold that they constitute restrictions in themselves or an impediment of trade and commCl"ce. The right to carry on trade and commerce is not a right to be free from regulation that ensures orderly conditions for the pursuit of the activity. Nor can a right be exercised in Ci such a manner as would create chaos through unregulated actions of numerous participants. In other words, the fact that a requirement operates as a pre-condition is not sufficient in itself to hold that it impedes or restricts trade. In order to constitute an impediment, the condition must be demonstrated to cause, as a direct and inevitable consequence of its operation a restriction H

.JINDAL STAINLESS r.:rD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 115 of trade or commerce. Every regulalo1·y requirement does nol A restrict or impede trade and commerce even if at the threshold, its fulfilment is a condition enabling a person or entity to engage 111 a regulated activity. [Paras 267, 26811671-B-ll; 672-A-BI

26.6 Jn a fiscal context, the payment of an impost or levy is attracted when lhc taxing event occurs. The lax may be on 13 persons, activities or things. It is the taxing event which incurs the charge or liability to tax. The charge may be associated with an aspect of an activity or thing. The mere fact that this aspect is connected with the flow or movement of trade or commerce does not in itself lead to the conclusion that the tax constitutes an c impediment or restriction. The impediment does not lie in the aspect of the activity or thing which is the subject of the tax but in ils consequence. Every tax or movement on entry does not impede trade or commerce. The volume of trade in a commodity is determined by numerous variables including the nature of the product, availability of raw material, transportation and infrastructure, the nature and extent of competition, market cycles as well as the elasticity of demand and supply. The tax structure is one ingredient which has a bearing on the allocation of resources. For a tax to constitute a restriction, there must be demonstrable material to indicate that its direct and inevitable effect or consequence is to obstruct or impede trade or commerce. Before the tax is held to be a restriction, the threshold must be crossed by demonstrating that the immediate and necessary consequence is to restrict impede or obstruct trade as a whole. t:nless the impact of the financial levy is demonstrated, in terms of its direct and inevitable consequence, to restrict trade 01· commerce the provisions of Article 304 (b) would not be attracted. For, there has to a restriction in the first place before the issue of its reasonableness arises. Consequently, it is not possible to hold that lhe mere fact that the charge of the tax is associated with an aspect of the movement of trade and commerce G indicates that it is a restriction in every case. The burden lies upon the individual or entity asserting the existence of a restriction to demonstrate its impact in terms of the direct and inevitable effect test as adopted above. Hence, there can be no a priori assumption that an entry tax constitutes a restriction or H

SlJl'RFME CCURT REPORTS [2016] JO S.C.R.

A impediment to trade and commerce. While recognising sovereignty in the fields assigned to the centre and the states, the Constil ution subjects its sovereign arms to constitutional limitalions which are designed to preserve the balance which it has created. Hence all legislative power, including of a fiscal nature has to abide by the norms of the written constitution ..Judicial review of fiscal legislation however recognises the wide latitude which inheres in the legislatures both at the national and state level lo classify persons, objects and things for the purpose of raising rcvenues.jPara 269, 276]1672-B-IJ; 674-Cj c .-1 hmeda!wd St. Xm·ier Co!!age Society v. State of" (iujoror 1975 (I) SCR 173 : (1974) 1 SCC 717; !ndirn Saw/mer 1·. UOJ 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 215; Supreme Courr AdFocales on Record Association v. UOJ 1993 D (3) SCR 669 : (1993) 4 SCC 441; SR Bommai v. UOJ, (1994) 3 SCC 1; Attomev General of" India v. Amritlal Prajvandas (1994) 5 SCC 54; Mafatlal Industries v. UOJ 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 585: 1997 (5) sec 536; Special Reference No. I of I 998 1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 400: (1998) 7 SCC 739; 1.R.Coe!ho v. State of TN 2007 I·. (1) SCR 706 : (2007) 2 sec 1 - cited.

PER ASUOK BIIUSIIAN, .J. (Partly dissenting)

1. From the legislative hislor:v and the ex lent of freedom of F trade and commerce as emerged from Constituent Assembly Debates, it is abundantly clear that the taxes were treated as rcstric1ion on freedom of trade and commerce and it was further comprehended that restriction on freedom of trade and commerce can be put by taxation also. !Para 15511734-B] (i

Ke.1·a1·,111m1da !?harati v. State of Kera/a 1973 Suppl. SCR I : (1973) 4 SCC 225 -- followed. State of Rajastlwn and others I". U11io11 of India and others 1978 (I) SCR I : (1977) 3 SCC 592; Special ll

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 117

Reference No. 1 of' 1964: In the matter of.' Under Article A 143 of' the Constitution of' India, (1965) l SCR 413; S.R. Bommai v. Union of'Jndia 1994 (2) SCR 644 : 1994 (3) SCC 1; Ku/dip Na.var v. Union of' India 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR l : (2006) 7 SCC 1 - rererred to. A.V. Dicey "The Law of' the Constitution .. - referred to. B

Nature or Federalism in Constitution or India

2. Federalism in the Constitution is limited and controlled hy the Constitution and the exercise of powers of both the States C and the Centre arc controlled by express provisions of the Constitution. IJ>ara 17 3117 46-A] Limitation on the legislative power of the State under the C 011Stjt11ti0 II

3.1 It is well settled that legislative power of the State is D subject to the provisions of the Constitution. The words 'subject to the prnvisions of this Constitution' had lo give its full meaning and content. Thus, limitation of the legislative powers wherever found in the Constitution has to be given effect to. There can be no doubt that Part XIJ of the Constitution deals with "Finance, E Property, Contracts and Suits" and there are various express limitations provided in Part XII, namely, Articles 276, 286 and certain other Articles but can Part XII be treated as the only limitations on the legislative powers of the States, the answer has lo be in negative. All legislative powers is subject to F limitations in the Constitution, be it fiscal statutes or non-fiscal statutes. !Paras 182, 18511750-G-II; 751-A; 752-F]

Slate ol Kercila and others v. Mar Apprae111 Kuri Co111pam· Urnited and another 2012 (4) SCR 448 : G (2012) 7 SCC 106; K111111athat Tha1lw1111i Moopil Nair v. The Srate of' Kera/a and anot/1e1: (1961) 3 SCR 77; Hari Krishna Blwrgav v. U11io11 of' India and another 1966 SCR 22 : 1966 AIR SC 619 - relied on. H

118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A 3.2 Whether Part XIII also contains limitations on the legislative power of the State. Part XIII of the Constitution has been included in the Constitution after great deliberation and debates in the Constituent Assembly. Part XIII contains one of the most important right and principle on which country was to march to attain economic freedom. [Para 1861(752-G-H) 8 3.3 Article 245 which is a source of all legislative power puts a general limitation on all legislative power which lrns been expressly made 'subject to the provisions of this Constitution'. When all legislative powers arc subject to the provision of c Constitution, Part XIII being also a part of the Constitution, all legislative power has also to be subject to Part XIII. [Para 188][753-F-G] 3.4 Article 303 is an express provision which provides for 'restriction on the legislative power of the Union and the States D with regard to trade and commerce'. Article 304 is another provision which although empowers the legislature of the State to put restriction on trade, commerce and intercourse among the States by law, but law to be made by the State is hedged by various restrictions as contained in Article 304(a) and 304(b). Thus Article 304 is also a limitation on legislative power of the E State. Part XIII of the Constitution contains limitation on the legislative power of the State and all legislative power of the State whether fiscal or non-fiscal has to conform Part XII of the Constitution. [Parns 189, 192][753-H; 754-A-B, G)

F Stale cif Tamil Nadu and Olhers v. Sitolaxmi Adills and O!hers 1974 (3) SCR 1 : 1974 (4) SCC 408; G.K. Krishnan v. Sla/e <if Tamil Nadu 1975 (2) SCH 715 : (1975) 1 sec 375 - referred to.

G Whether Part XIII of the Constitution covers "tax legislation" and word "restriction" used therein includes tax legislation. 4.1 Part XIII covers all tax legislations which impede the H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 119 freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse: (a) The express use of word tax in Article 304(a) and 306 (as it existed before its repeal by Constitution's 7th Amendment Act, 1956) indicates that taxes were expressly included in Part XIII. Had the taxes, apart from as mentioned in 304(a) were not to be covered under Part XIII, Article 306 ought not to have been engrafted which permitted continuance of tax or duty on the import and export of the goods, in Part B States for a period not exceeding ten years from the commencement of the constitution. The framers of the Constitution were conscious that unless an overriding effect is given to taxes which are continuing in the State the same shall fall foul to Article 301. (b) Article 302 uses the phrase, c "Parliament may by law". Whereas Article 303 uses the phrase "neither Parliament nor the legislature of the State shall have power to make any law..... " Article 304 uses the phrase the legislature of a State "may bv law". All laws framed by Parliament or State in exercise of legislative entries under VII'" Schedule D arc law. Article 302 - 304 contain exception according to which, freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse as guaranteed under Article 301 can be overridden. The word law is wide enough to include both fiscal and non-fiscal legislations. (c) Article 303 imposes restriction on the legislative power of the Union as well as of the State with regard to trade :md commerce. Article 303(1) provides that a State shall have no powers to make any law giving or authorising the giving of, any preference to one State over another, or making or authorising the making of, any discrimination between one State or another, by virtue of any entry relating to trade and commerce in any Lists of the VTI"' F Schedule. The legislative power of the State, which is restricted under 303(1) cannot be held to be confined only to law as referred to in 304(a) rather it can extend to a legislation by virtue of any entry relating to the trade and commerce in List II. From this, it is clear that tax legislation which arc covered under Part Xlll G arc not confined to only Article 304(a). (cl) ln the event, the submission is accepted that all taxes arc outside Part XIII except non-discriminatory taxes as permitted under Article 304(a), the same will lead to giving right to the Parliament and State Legislature to pass facially non-discriminatory laws but creating H

120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A restrictions on trade and commerce by other means by providing arbitrary procedure and various other kind of restraints. The taxation which can impede the trade, commerce and intercourse thus cannot he confined only to non-discriminatory taxation. Even, non-discriminatory taxes which create restraint on trade have to he held to fall foul to Article 301. In the event of accepting the ahovc submission, the restraint in trade by other means offa:rntion sh:tll be out of reach of Part XIII, which is never the intention of the framers of the Constitution. (c) Article 304(a) covers imposition of taxes on goods imported from other States. Article 304(a) docs not apply to imposition of taxes on intra-State trade. (' Can it be presumed that intra-State taxation, if it contains restraint on trade between one local area to another local area or is discriminatory, the same is outside the reach of Article 301'? The answer is obviously no. Trade and commerce throughout the territory of India is to be free. Thus reach of Article 301 is not J) confined to taxation as contemplated by 304(a) rather Part XIJI embraces in itself all kind or tax legislation, which contains restraint on trade, commerce and intercourse. (f) Article 304(a) only covers taxes on goods imported from other Stale and Union Territories. List II of VII 11 ' Schedule contains various other entries which cm1rnwer the State to levy taxes. Entry 49 to Entry <>2 enumerate various fields of taxing legislation. In the event, the submission is accepted that it is only taxes referred to under Article 304(a), arc covered hy Part XIII, all taxing legislations as enumerated in List II shall go out of reach of Part XIII. Whether Constitution framers contemplated that restriction in freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse can be imposed by the State by taxing legislation other than those referred to in 304(a), answer has to he negative. Other taxing legislation apart from those, mentioned in Article 304(a) are not immuned from restriction contained in l'a1·t X IJJ. For example, Entry 49 provides 'taxes on (i lands and buildings'. A State Legislation is passed imposing taxes on buildings where I rade and commerce is carried, the effect of which is to impede the trade and commerce, can it be said that such tax legislation cannot be questioned as violating Article 301. The answer is that such legislation has also to comply with Article

301. Thus, Article 304(a) is not the only taxation which is covered 11

JINDAL STAINLESS r:rD. v. STArE OF HARYANA 121 by Part Xlll. But it is only species of taxation which has been expressly indicated for carving out gateway for the State Legislature to impose tax which may not impede Article 301. (g) Lastly, there arc no provision in Part XIII which negate the applicability of Part XIII on taxes which operates as restriction to trade, commerce and intercourse. Something which is not expressly excluded in Part Xlll cannot be excluded by way of intcrprclal ion. !Para 19911756-F-ll; 757-A-ll; 758-A-G] 4.2 While discussing the subject 'Legislative History and Debates in Constituent Assembly' on freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, it was found that taxes were treated as restrictions c on freedom of trade and commerce and it was further comprehended that 1·cstrictions on freedom of trade and commerce can he put by taxation also. Apart from above, there arc following reasons which support conclusion that word 'restriction' used in Part XIII includes tax legislation: (i) The textual interpretation of Part XIII itself indicates that taxes were D contemplated to be included in word ·restriction'. The heading of Article 304 reads 'restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse among States'. Although the heading refers to "restrictions' but Article 304(a) uses the word 'any tax'. (ii) The same conclusion is drnwn from the Article 306 as it was enacted. E Article 306 also contained a heading 'power of certain States in Part B of the I'' Schedule to impose restriction on 'trade and commerce'.' Article 306 contained a 11011 obstante clause empowering Part B, States to continue to levy and collect such tax, subject to an agreement with the Government of India which F was being levied at the time of commencement of the Constitution. The heading only referred to restrictions on trade and commerce whereas section referred to imposition of taxes. Thus textual interpretation of Article 304 and 306 clearly indicates that word "1-cstriction' was used as inclusive of taxes. (iii) The word 'restriction' has been used in Part Ill, in Article 19(2) to Article G 19(6). The word 'restriction' has also been used in Part Xlll. The word 'restriction' appearing in Part Ill and Part Xlll have the same meaning and should be construed as such. It is well known principle of statutory interpretation of Constitution that when the same words or phrases arc used in different parts of H

122 SUPREME COURT REPORrs [2016] 10 S.C.R.

/\ the Constitution, the same meaning should be ascribed to such word unless the context demands otherwise. (vi) The word 'resfriction' used in Article 304(h) has also to be interpreted in the same manner. Article 304(a) covers limited field to taxes on goods imported from other States. Article .104(a) does not cover fl intra-State taxation. An Intra-State Tax Legislation, impeding the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse between one local area to another local area, has also to fall foul to Article 301. There may he valid reasons for State legislature to impose restriction with regard to intra-State taxation and there may be reasons for fixing different rate of taxes with 1·egard to different (' local areas, which may be a restriction on the trade, commerce and intercourse. Article 304(b) is a window by which a State can impose reasonable restriction in public interest. In the event, it is held that Article 304(b) does not cover taxes, the State will have no mechanism to impose restriction on intra-State trade ]) and with regard to imposition of taxes other than goods imported from other States, which can not be the intention of framers of the Constitution. jPara 20011758-11; 759-A-U; 760-A-ll; 761-A- BI K. T Alnopi/ Nair v. State of' Kera/a and Anr. 1961 (3) l '. SCH 77 - referred lo. Legislative history and constituent assembly debates relating to Article 304(a)and 304(b)

5. Article 244 which was subsequently approved as Article 274D in Part XA and was adopted as Article 304 of the F Constitution. The above indicates that initially the provisions empowered the State "to impose on goods imported from other States any tax to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that State arc subject'', and hy an amendment another restriction i.e. "so, however, as not to discriminate between goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced" was added. Article .104(a) contains both the above restrictions on the legislative power of the State. The proceedings of the Constituent Assembly, thus, clearly indicate that both the above conditions have hcen added in lhe provision as separate conditions and the second condition was added by way of amendment in addition to If

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE or HARYANA 123 the first condition which already existed. Now coming to Article A 304(b) which was similar to draft Article 244(b), Constituent Assembly debated the above Article threadbare. It is clear that ohjcclion:: with regard to Article 274D sub-clause (b) whi<:h is now Article 31H(b) \HTC raised before the Constituent Asr;cmhly hut the objections were overruled by retaining Article 2740 snb- B clausc (h) which is now Article 304(b), thus, inclusion of Article 304(h) in <he Con~:titntion was consequent to well deliberated Constitutional Scheme and was accepted as restriction on the power of State to have uniform fiscal 1101icy. and uniform an economic policy. !Paras 207, 216][764-D-F; 770-C-D] c Interpretation, scope and ambit of Article 304(a) and Article 304(b) 6.1 'Article 304 begins with a 11011 obsta11te clause i.e. 'notwithstanding anything in Article 301 or 303'. Article 301 declares that trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the tenitory of India shall be free. Article 304 has overriding effect over Article 30 I, Article 304 provides for 'restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse' amongst States, as is clear by its heading, which otherwise would not have been permissible under

301. Article 304 also overrides restrictions on the legislative power of the State as provided for in Article 303. Article 304 E empowers legislature of a State by law to impose on gooc;s imported from other States or Union Territories any tax. A rlain reading of Article 304(a) indicates that it contains certain conditions for imposition of taxes on goods imported from other States. Article 304(a) can be divided in following parts:- i. Impose F on goods irnpor·tcd from other States or Union Territories; ii. Any tax to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that State arc subject;iii. So, however, as not to discriminate between goods so imported and so manufactured or produced. !Paras 218, 219][771-B-El G 6.2 Article 304 is, in nature of enabling provisions to the State, to impose taxes on goods imported from other States. Framers of the Constitution had stated that the goods coming from other· parts of the India in the units concerned cannot escape duties and taxes to which the goods produced in the units arc H

124 SUPREME COURT RFPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

/\ subjcd. Th~rc is specific purpose and object in enabling lhe State to impose tax on goods imported from other States only when similar goods manufactured or produced in that State arc sub_ject. The object is that trade and commerce throughout the trrritory of India has to be free, as required by Article 301 and limited power to State was given to tax the outside goods when local goods arc subject to taxes. In event, locally manufactured or produced goods arc not subject to any tax, State has no jurisdiction to impose tax on similar goods coming from other States. Tax on the locally manufactured or produced goods is condition precedent for imposing tax on similar goods coming c from other States. Idea is that when State docs not tax its locally manufactured or produced goods, similar goods coming from out of the State he permitted a free flow which is a part of freedom guaranteed under Article 301. jPara 22011772-A-DI 6.3 The last condition that 'so, however, as not to !) discriminate between goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced ... " is another limb of restriction which prohibits the State from discriminating in imposing taxes on imported goods as compared to goods manufactured or produced locally. The question of discrimination shall arise only when first condition that is locally manufactured or produced goods arc taxed hy a State. In event, a particular good is nol produced or manufactured in a State, State cannot be allowed to impose tax on goods coming from other States. First condition that is, taxing of the local goods being not fulfilled, the question of discrimination, does not arise. The power under Article 304(a) for imposing taxes on the imported goods can be exercised by a State only when similar goods manufactured or produced locally are subject to tax. When the similar goods are not subject to tax or similar goods are not available in the State, the State is obliged to permit free flow of goods from other States which is cardinal principle G enshrined in Article 301 and the relaxation to the States has been given only on a condition that State imposes taxes both on local goods and outside goods. [Para 2211[772-E-H I

JINDAL STAINLESS r:rD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 125

Firm A.TR.Mehtahmajid and Company v. State of A Madras and 11nother.1· 1963 SCR Suppl. (2) 435; State of Madhl'a Pradesh i,: Bhailal Bhai and Others 1964 (6) SCR 261 -- aflirmed. 7.1 Imposition of tax only on imported goods when no such tax is levied on local goods violates Article 304(a). Articles 304(a) B and 304(1.>) are joined with conjunction 'and'. According to the principles of statutory intcq>retation the word 'and' is normally used conjunctively and word 'or' is normally used disjunctively hut at times they arc used as vice versa to give effect to the manifest intention of the Legislation as disclosed in the context c of the Legislation. Article 304 is an exemption granted to the State when State can impose taxes and impose restrictions on the freedom of trade and commerce which freedom is guaranteed under Article 301 of the Constitution of India. Article 304 begins with the words "Notwithstanding anything in Article 301 or Article 303, the Legislature of a State may by law-". Two sub-clauses D (a) and (b) are enabling powers given to the State by which taxes can be imposed on imported goods and rcs_trictions can lie imposed on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse. In the event, we tend to read conjunction 'and' as 'or' it may mean that the State may exercise only one of the enabling powers as given in the clauses (a) and (b). It is not the intention of Article 304 to empower the State to only exercise either of the powers, the clear intendment of the State is that the State may by law impose on goods imported from other States any tax- clause (a); and impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within that State - clause (b ). The use of word 'may' in the beginning of Article 304 indicates that the power is enabling and States are entitled to exercise either or both the powers as may be required in the facts of the case. Furthc1; there is no compulsion on the State to exercise powers given in clauses (a) and (b) both. The State may choose to exercise only power given in clause (a) or power given in clause (h). (Paras 234, 235, 236 and 238]1779-C, D-E, G; 781-A-E)

126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] IO S.C.R.

A 7.2 The word 'and' between clauses (a) and {b) has to be read as joint and several, both meaning can be assigned as per requirement of a State Legislature. With regard to law made by State Legislature exercising the power under clause (a) of Article 304 which does not ii.npose any restriction on the freedom of R trade, commerce and intercourse need not comply with Article 304(b). llowever, a law even though may comply with Article 304(a) but contains restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse has to obtain sanction of the President ·as contemplated by proviso to clause (b). The requirement of obtaining previous sanction of the President has to be decided in c accordance with the nature and content of the State Legislation. Article 304(b) proviso is one of such Constitutional Schemes where the State power is restricted and limited to the above extent. The Constituent Assembly Debates clearly bring about the rationale of introduction of the requirement of Presidential D assent in respect of certain laws by which State Legislature put restriction on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. In the Constituent Assembly there was serious objection raised against clause (b) of Article 304 and amendment was moved for deletion of clause (b) from the Constitution. The above amendment after great discussion was negatived by approving the limited restraint 1rnt on the State Legislature as cngrafted in Article 304(b) proviso. [Paras 240, 24211782-G; 783-D-E; 786-F- G] 7.3 Article 304(a) is only with regard to the imposition of tax on goods imported from other States. Article 304(a) does not f refer to taxes imposed on the local goods. In the event, the State Legislature imposes restrictions on the freedom of trade and commerce by taxing legislation covering local goods, whether the validity of it cannot be tested on anvil of Article 301. Further, State in public interest requires imposition of reasonable restriction by imposing tax on the local goods, what procedure it has to follow so as to not impede Article 301. There cannot be any dispute that power to legislate including tax legislation is the power allocated to State Legislature under the Constitutional Scheme under Article 245 and 246. Article 304 is not a source of power of legislation by State rather as the heading of the section

JINDAL STAlNLESS !TD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 127 indicates that it is a "Restriction on trade, commerce and intercourse among States." Article 304(a) only deals with goods imported from other States hence for imposing reasonable restrictions in the pulJlic interest on trade, commerce and intercourse with regard to local goods, only way out for a State to save its legislation is to go through the route as provided under B Article 304(b). We cannot imagine that merely because State Legislature has competence to frame tax law with regard to local goods, it can impose taxes which amoui1t to impeding the freedom of trade and commerce, whereas the Constitution does not provide any exemption to State Legislature in that regard. [Para 24911791-B-F'] c 7.4 A State Legislature in exercise of its legislative power referable to any of the Entries of List ll can frame law both fiscal or non-liscal. When Article 304 uses words "by law" and the law is a wider term which embraces both fiscal and non-fiscal legislation with regard to clause (b), it cannot be limited as only non-fiscal law. If it is held that Article 304(b) does not refer to tax law, a different meaning would be given to wor.ds "by law" used in the beginning of Article 304 which governs both clauses (a) and (b). The mere fact that clause (a) uses the words 'any tax' and clause (b) does not use the word 'tax' is not of much significance since the word restrictions used in clause (b) is wide enough to cover any kind of restriction by fiscal law. Neither Article 302 no·r Article 303 uses the word 'tax'. Both Articles are dealing with freedom of trade and commerce, non-use of word 'tax' in Article 304(b) is also inconsequential. Thus, the word F 'restrictions' under Article 304(b) is vide enough to include restrictions placed both by fiscal or non-fiscal law. Article 304(b) operates in a very limited field and plenary legislative power of the State, in no manner, is restricted by Article 304(b). Thus, the apprehension that Article 304(b) operates serious restraint on the legislative power is misplaced. Thus, word 'restriction' as G used in Part XII I as well as in Article 304(b) at the Constitution includes tax legislation also. [Paras 251, 253][791-G-H; 792-A- B, F-GI State of Madhaya Pradesh v. Ahdeali 1963 SCR 704 : AIR 1963 SC 1237 - distinguished. H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A Union o/ !ndia and others v. Wood Papers Ltd. And another 1990 (2) SCR 659 : 1990(4) SCC 256 - affirmed. Andhra Steel Corpora/ion v. Co11imissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karna/aka, 1990 (Suppl.) SCC B 617; Shree Mahavir Oil Mills and anolher v. Slate of' J & Kand others, 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 356 : (1996) 11 SCC 39; Weston Electronics and t11101her 1•. State of' Gujaral and others 1988 (3) SCH 768 : ( 1988) 2 SCC 568 - referred to c 7.5 For a legislation to be within four corners of 304(a), two conditions arc necessary to be fulfilled (1) State can impose on goods imported from other States any tax to which similar goods manufactured or produced arc subject, (2) so however, as D not to discriminate between goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced. The first condition is tbat goods manufactured or produced in the State are subject lo tax, when exemption is granted in payment of tax to a specified category on fullillmenl of certain condition, it pre-supposes that goods are r: subject to tax. The exemption granted on a specified class of goods, subject to condition, docs not militate against the tax to which the goods arc subject. Thus in cases of grant of exemption to a specified category on conditions mentioned therein, first condition as noted above is not breached. Now coming to the second condition i.e. so, however, as not to discriminate goods F expo1·ted and goods locally manufactured or produced. Goods exempted fall in a different category then the bulk of goods produced and manufactured in the State. Exemptions under different statutes have been upheld due to legislative policy i1s delineated in a particular statute. [Para 277][808-G-H; 809-A-C] G 7.6 The exception carved out in Video Electronics upheld exc1J1pt.ion notification where it is limited to specified type with short pe.-iod. The gcncrnl exemption and exemption in wider term has never hccn approved. The ratio of Video Electronics has to he read as justifying only exemption limited to a specified category II

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF l-IARYANA 129 for a short periocl. Exemption in general terms of unlimited in nature cannot he approved. The exemption cannot he usecl as measure of cliscrimination between goocls imported from other States ancl goocls manufactured or proclucecl in the State. The exemption has to he a limitecl exemption to the tax which is imposecl on the similar goocls. In the event exemption is total ancl general in nature, the said exemption is clearly violative of Article 304(a). Similarly, set off of a particular tax which is general ancl not limited to specified category has also to be clisapprovecl. State Legislature in exercise of its· taxing power can grant exemption/set off to local goocls, only to a limited extent hasecl on intelligible clifferentia which is not in the nature of general/ c unspecifiecl exemption. The exemption/set off which tend to become general exemption violates Article 304(a). [Paras 279, 28011810-F-H; 811-A-BJ

D Videv Electrvnics Pvt. Ltd. And anvther v. State uf Punjab and anuther 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 731 : (1990) 3 SCC 87 - Clarified.

Entry 52 of list II of VII th schedule of the Constitution E 8.1 Legislative fielcl uncler State List, Entry 52 is 'taxes on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein'. The Entry 52 itself clemonstrate that there are inherent limitations as regarcl the nature ancl character of the levy. In orcler to have a levy of tax to come within the purview of Entry 52, such F levy has to satisfy three conclitions: (I) The levy uncler the State Entry must be 'on the entry of goods' which constitutes the taxable events. (ii) The levy in question must be in respect of 'into a local area'. The local area has been defined as ' an area aclministered by local body like a municipality, a clistrict board, a G local boarcl, a union board, a panchayat or the like'. (iii) The goods must enter into the local area for the purpose of 'consumption, use or sale therein'. [Para 281 ][811-D-F)

130 SUPREME CC"_;RT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

/\ 8.2 The cx1Jrcssion Entry Tax has to be understood in its plain meaning and ulso in the backdrop -0f historical imposition of taxes of this kind. The tax commonly known as octroi was in force in 190 l and j( was subsequently included in VII'h Schedule of Lisi II of Government of India Act, 1935. The Constitution of India docs not use the word octroi. List I Entry 89 provides for 'terminal tax on goods and passengers carried by railways, sea or air; taxes on railway fares and flights'. Taxes levied under Entry 52 is commonly known as entry tax. While noticing the Constituent Assembly debates, it is seen that freedom of trade and commerce was envisaged as freedom from border taxes, c custom barriers etc., which was prevalent in Indian States. Section 297 of 1935 Act had contained a prohibition for imposing taxes on entry of goods from other States. The Constitution framers decided that States have to be conceded some taxing powers for revenue 1rnrposes and for purpose of carrying out various D development pro.iects. Article 301 provides freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India, simultaneously, exception to such freedom have been engrafted in Article 302 - 306. jParas 282, 283J[811-G-H; 812-A-C] 8.3 The Ent1·y Tax is related to movement of goods. Movement of goods have been treated to be an integral part of trade and commerce. A law, made under the subject matter of f<:ntry 52 List 11, would thus clearly be a tax on the movement of goods and thus would fall within the purview of the inhibition of Article 301 and the said law can only be saved if it complies with the Article 304. It is well settled that there is a clear distinction between incidence of a levy and the machinery provisions contained in law to give effect to such levy. The incidence of levy is on entry of goods hence incidence of tax is complete as the goods enters into the local area, whether the tax is collected immediately or subsequently has no relevance with the incidence of taxation. !Paras 285, 28711812-D; 813-C, El

State ol Kamataka v. Hansa Corporation 1981 (1) SCR 823 : 1980 4 SCC 697 -- referred to. H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 131

8.4 The trade and commerce being contemplated to be free throughout the territory of India, any restriction on movement of goods per .se has to be treated as violating Article 301 unless the tax is saved by exceptions provided in Part XIII. However, there may be a tax which though complies Article 304(a) but still contains the restriction to trade and commerce which is an area where much difficulty has been felt. All taxes which comply with Article 304(a) need not to be routed through Article 304(b) and it is only those taxes which contain restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse which need to be routed through 304(b). This can be demonstrated by taking a simple example. An Entry tax legislation is passed complying Article 304(a) levying Entry Tax on goods c imported from outside the State as well as local goods at the rate of one percent of value of goods. Normally, such levy cannot be treated as any restriction on the trade and commerce and shall 1iass muster of Article 304(a) and need no compliance of Article 304(b). But in a case wliere, Entry Tax is levied to the extent of D hundred per cent of the value of goods both on imported goods and locally produced or manufactured goods, the said levy is clear restriction on trade and commerce and has to be routed through Article 304(b). For taking out such levy, from the effect of Article 301 both 304(a) and 304(b) needs to be complied with. Entry E Tax legislation which is a tax on movement of goods, trade and commerce is inhibited by Article 301 and such State legislation can be saved under Article 304. Whether a particular Entry Tax Legislation is valid and docs not contravene Part XIII of the Constitution, can be decided only after looking into the nature, content and extent oflcgislation and its impact on trade, commerce and intercourse. [Paras 288, 289][813-F-H; 814-A-D]

Meaning of "restriction" as used in Part XIII 9.1 Freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India is guaranteed under Article 301. The framers of the Constitution were conscious that the freedom cannot be absolute and it may be necessary in several circumstances to restrict the freedom in public interest. Article 302 - 306 enumerates exceptions to the freedom as guaranteed H

132 SUPREMF COl !RT REPORTS 12016] JO S.C.R.

A under Article 301. What is the meaning and contents of word 'restriction' as used in Part Xlll? The word 'restriction' has also been used under Article 19 (2) to 19 (6) while empowering the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) to 19 (1) (g). The restriction thus is an act to limit, confine and restrain. The 'restriction', in Part XHI has been used in the context of restriction to freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. The law, which restrict or limit such right are called restrictions. !Paras 290, 29211814-E-F; 815-CI c illdia11 Cement and Others v. State o( Andhra Pradesh 1988 (2) SCR 574: 1988 1 SCC 743 - referred to. New Webster Dictionary; The Black's Law Dictionary -- · referred to. I)

9.2 Article 302 - 306 contain provisions, by which restriction can he put on the freedom of trade and commerce. Some restrictions have been expressly mentioned in said articles. Article 303 provides for 'restrictions on the legislative powers of the Union and of the States with regard to the trade and commerce'. As per Article 303, sub-article Clause I following arc treated to be restrictions:- (i) Any law giving or authorising the giving of any preference to one State over another, (ii) Any law making or authorising the making of, any discrimination between one State and another. Thus preferences and discrimination both are treated as restriction in the context of freedom of trade and commerce. Coming to Article 304(a) any law framed by legislature is restriction on freedom of trade and commerce which:- a). Imposes on goods imported from other G Slate, any tax when no such tax is imposed on similar goods manufactured or produced in that State, b). Imposes on goods imported from other States any tax which discriminates between goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced. !Paras 294, 29511816-C-H]

JINDAL STAINLESS lTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 133

9.3 Again in Article 304 sub-clause(b) State is empowered to impose reasonable restrictions in the public interest. Article 306, as it was initially enacted, contained heading 'power of certain States in Part B of the Schedule to impose restriction on trade and commerce'. Article 306 permitted any tax on duty on import of goods into the State from other States or on the export of goods from the State to another States which was being imposed by a State specified in Part B to continue by an agreement between Government of lndia and Government of States for a period, not exceeding ten years. The article contemplates continuance of tax or duty which was treated to be 1·estriction and was allowed to continue only with an agreement for a maximum period of ten c years. The restriction which can be imposed, as contemplated by above provisions of law, have to be such limitation on the right of freedom of trade and commerce which should not be arbitrary or of excessive nature beyond what is required in the context of the power. ll'aras 296, 298] 1817-A-C, l~I D

Slm:e Mahavir Oil Mills and Another i: State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 3S6 : 1996 11 SCC 39; State of Madras v. V G Row 19S2 SCR 607; Keshav Mills Co. Ud. v. CIT 196S SCR 908 : E AIR 1965 SC 1636; K. K. Koch11ni and Others v. State nl :\!ladros and Others. (1960) 3 SCR 887; K. T. Moopil Nair ''- State of Kera/a and Others (1961) 3 SCR 77; Godlrey Philips India Ltd v. State of UP 200S (1) SCR 732 : (200S) 2 SCC SIS; Maharaj Umeg Singh F and others v. The State of Bomhav and others (19SS) 2 SCR 164; State of Madras v. N.K. Nataraja Mudaliar 1968 (3) SCR 829; ITC Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others 120071 7 VST 367; Madras; Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. and another i-: National Textile Co17m. (Maharashtra G North) Ltd. and others 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR SSS : (2002) 8 sec 182 - referred to.

134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] IO S.C.R.

A 9.4 Allhough the word 'restriction' may also in certain circumstances includes prohibitions but restriction is not to be understood with complete prohibition or stopriage of business, effect of tax when it hinders the trade & commerce, it becomes restriction and prohibited under Article 301. The issue as to B whether the restriction contained in any taxing statute impede the freedom of trade and commerce is a question which will vary from case to case. The nature of restriction and the magnitude of the restriction are all relevant factors to determine whether trade is impeded or not. It is well settled that provisions in a statute which is regulatory in nature which facilitates the trade c have not been treated as restriction impeding the freedom of trade and commerce. Traffic regulations, registration of motor vehicles for plying in the State, collection of toll have not been treated to be restriction in freedom of trade and commerce. [Paras 299, 30311818-A; 820-D-FJ I)

/"axmi Khandwri Etc. v. State of U.P 1981 (3) SCR 92; G. K. Krishnan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others 1975 (2) SCR 715 : (1975) 1 SCC 375; Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India, E Etc. v. Union of India and Others 1989 (2) SCR 918 : (1989) 3 sec 634 - referred to.

9.5 What has been expressly prohibited in Article 302 - 306 arc all restrictions in the freedom of trade and commerce which shall obviously contravene Article 301, bnt there may be other instances when a law is treated to be restriction although not expressly enumerated in Part 302 to 306. Article 301 is not attracted in a legislation which does not contain any kind of restriction to the freedom of trade and commerce. The question G of applicability of Part XIII arises only when the legislation contains restrictions which hamper, restrict, impede and adversely affect the freedom of trade and commerce directly & immediately. !Para 304)1820-F-H I

JINDAL STAINLESS LJ'D. v. STATE or HARYANA 135

Whether 'direct and immediate effect test' as laid down in A Atiabari and approved in Automobile Transport is no longer a correct test 10.1 Our Constitution framers were well aware of the provisions of the Australian Constitution and the difficulties which arose in the Australia and different views expressed on the B interpretation of Section 92, the Constitution framers though took inspiration from Section 92 but they did not stop there, rather they expressly provided for qualification to the right and freedom guaranteed under Article 301 by Article 302 - 306. In Atiabari in all the three opinions expressed by Sinha, C.J., and C Gajendragadkar, J., and Shah, J., it was noted that in our Constitution, there is a departure from A.ustralian Constitution and the Australian judgments are not relevant. .Justice Gajendragadkar, has referred to two Privy Council judgments dealing with Australian Constitution to know how judicial minds have resrwnded to the challenge presented by similar provisions. D In the above spirit, references of those two Privy Council judgments were made. Thus Gajendragadkar, J., did not base his judgment on the test, which was laid down in the Australian judgments but found justification for his conclusion from the aforesaid judgments. Further, the primary reason why the E Australian High Court in Cole Vs. Whitfield rejected the 'trade and immediate effect test' is, that because the freedom guaranteed under Section 92 applies only "between the States" i.e. to the interstate trade, i.e., The doctrine accordingly ended up discriminating against intrastate trade as it 1>rovided some sort F of immunity to interstate transactions which intrastate transaction did not enjoy. In Part Xlll of the Constitution, the Constitution framers had provided for non-discriminatory taxation between the intrastate and interstate trade with provision for dealing with all situation including a case whether restriction has to be imposed, on both interstate or intrastate trade that is Article 304(b). G Although the Australian High Court rejected the idea of 'direct and immediate effect test' as being artificial, this Court has continued to adopt the said doctrine whenever legislation is decided on the touchstone of reasonable restriction and the doctrine has been applied consistently in the vast number of cases H

Ll(i SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12016) 10 S.C.R.

A for decades which have stood the test of time. [Paras 312, 31311824-F:-F; 825-A-F] 10.2 The commerce class of the American Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 provides "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the f3 Indian tribes;" Part Xl!J of the Constitution has not adopted the American model and the interpretation on the commerce class is hardly relevant for interpretation of Part XUI. Non-discriminatory taxation by State in reference to interstate and intrastate trade is ingrained in Article 304(a) itself, and no abstract theory needs to he referred to for following Non-discriminatory Theory. I Paras 314, 3151[826-B-Ci 10.3 The concept as evolved in Australia and America with regard to freedom of trade and commerce, cannot be adopted in respect of interpretation of our Constitution, despite arguing against the relevance of foreign judgments, the States themselves arc now relying on the foreign .iudgmcnts in context of 'direct and immediate effect test theory'. The change in the legal position in Australia and America does not have any bearing on the Indian legal position as our Constitutional framework is different from those countries. No hard and fast formula can be laid clown to determine as to whether a particular legislation/taxation violates rights of freedom of trade and commerce under Article 301. It is for the Court to examine facts of each case and come to a conclusion. The submission for the State that 'direct and immediate effect test' is no longer a correct test, cannot be i: accepted. Each case has to he determined on facts of each case. The 'direct and immediate effect test' as laid down in Atiabari and approved in A11to111obile Tramport still holds good. [Paras 316, 317, 3181[826-D-E, F; 828-A-BI James v. Commonwealth al Australia (1936) AC 578; Co11mw1111:ealth of' Australia and Others v. Rank ol New SOLtlh Wales and Another (1950) AC 235; Cole v. Whirfie!d (1988) 78 ALR 42; S]Jector Morar Services. Inc. i·. q "Connor 430 US 289 (1951); Complete Auto fransir v. Bradr 430 US 274 (1977); Stale of' Marv/and 1: Stale ol J,011isia11a 451 US 725 - referred to. 1-1

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 137

Compensatorv Tax Theory A 11.1 Can a tax which is compensatory in nature lllso fall foul Article 301 of the Constitution '!" and "What are the tests for determining whether the tax or levy is compensatory in nature'"? It is an accepted proposition that one of the characteristics of tax is that it is an imposition made for public purpose without reference to any special benefit to be conferred on the payer of the tax. The taxes imposed by the Legislature, apart from being source of Revenue is also expended for various public welfare measures and when it's object is in no way connected with the public interest or public welfare it loses its character of taxation, becomes a levy which is unconstitutional. [Paras 319, 325][828-C; 831-B-C]

Khyerbari Tea Company Ltd. v. State ()f Assam (1964) 5 SCR 975; Co111111issione1~ Hindu Religious Endowme11ts. D A1adras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar ()f Sri Shina· Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005 : AIR 1954 SC 282- referred to. M"Culloch v. Stale of Maryland. 17 US 316 (1819); Duncan v. The State 4 Quee11sla11d, (1916) 22 CLR E 556; Mc Carter v. Brodie, (1950) 80 CLR 432; Hughes a11d Vale Proprietwy ltd. v. State of New South Wales, (1955) AC 241; Armstrong v. State <~l Victoria .Vu.2, (1957) 99 CLR 28; Co111111011wealth ()/" Austrulia v. Bunk of New South Wales (1950) AC 235; Commonwealth F Freighters Property ltd. v. Sneddon (1959) 102 CLR 280; Duncan and Others 1'. State of Queensland and Another (1916) 22 CLR 556. AfcCarter and Another 1~ Brodie, (1950) 80 CLR 432; Hughes and Vale ProprietmJ1 Ltd v. State <if ,'Vew Solllh Hides and Others [1955) AC 241 - referred to. G

11.2 Law of compensatory charge as developed in Austrnlia was clue to the fact that Section 92 dicl not contain any qualification H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] IO S.C.R.

A to !he absolute freedom of trade and commerce granted therein. Various qualifications and restrictions to the above freedom were culled out by judicial decisions of the High Court of Australia and Privy Council to justify the said qualifications and restrictions. The ratio contained in various judgments of the High Court of B Australia and the Privy Council on Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia cannot be a guiding factor for interpreting Part XIII of the Constitution of India. [Para 350][845-F-G]

Co111111omrea!th of Australian and Others v. Bank of Nett: C South Wales and Others [19501 AC 235; Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall, 75 US 148 (1869); Harold H. Henneford et al., v. Silas Mason Company, Inc. 300 US 577; Associated industries Of Missouri, et al., v. Janette M. Lohman 128 L Ed 2d 639; Oregon Waste s:vsrems v. Department oj' !) Enl'iro11111e11tal Quality of the State of Oregon 511 US 93 (1994); Fulton Corporation v Jenice H. Folk11e1; Secrelm:v of Revenue of North Carolina 516 US 325, 133 L Ed 2d 796 - referred to.

r 11.3 The answer to the question as to whether a compensatory tax is out of reach of Article 301 has to be found out from the Scheme of Part Xlll of the Constitution itself and not from the theory of compensatory charge as evolved in Australia or United States of America. Two fundamental principles of taxes are: (i) that it is an imposition made for public purpose, (ii) without reference to any special benefit to be conferred on the payer of the tax. [Para 3541f848-f:-FJ Stale of Bomhay v. R. M.D. Chamarhaugivala and another 1957 SCR 874 : AIR 1957 SC 699 - relied on.

11.4 The compensatory doctrine evolved in Automobile Transport is that compensatory tax is to compensate for facility extended, for example, wear and tear of the Road. The H

JINDAL STAINLESS r;ro. v. STATE OP HARYANA 139 compensatory tax can be imposed only for public purpose which fact is not denied by any of the parties. Can it be said that a tax which is a compensatory in nature need not to be subject to restriction as contained in part Xill ? If it is accepted that once a tax is held compensatory tax it goes out of reach of Part Xlll, it will be carving a new exception to Article 301 which is not contemplated in the constitutional scheme. The framers of the Constitution after providing for freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse in Article 301 laid down exceptions to the said freedom in Article 302 to 306. The exceptions laid down in the constitutional scheme arc self-contained and no new exception can be added by judicial interpretation. Can a compensatory tax c not impede trade, commerce and intercourse even if it is a non- discriminatory tax ? For example, Entry Tax is imposed on vehicles carrying goods in a local area to the extent of 50% of the value of goods, the statute further declares that entire amount received from tax will be expen"ded for providing facilities to the ]) entrants in the local area, i.e., on roads, lights, free fooding, free lodging, facility for free servicing, repairs of the vehicles, etc.etc. Can the mere fact that entire amount collected is expended for providing facilities shall take out the statute from the scrutiny of Part XIII ? Answer has to be in negative. The fact that a tax E statute compensates the payer of the tax does not take out the statute beyond Part XIII, all taxes, being for one or other public purposes. The tax legislation which professes to compensate the payer cannot take the tax legislation on a higher pedestal beyond the reach of Part Xlll, making such legislation "not subject to Constitution". When all legislative power is "subject to p Constitution" as per Article 245 and 246 of the Constitution, a legislation, namely, compensatory tax legislation cannot be said to be beyond Part XHI. Any such interpretation is clearly against the constitutional scheme. Thus the judgments of the High Court of Australia and the Privy Council relied in Automobile Transport G did not furnish a foundation for evaluation of compensatory tax theory in part XIII of the Constitution. [Paras 355, 3561[848-G- H; 849-A-.Fl

12. The scheme of Constitution of India indicates that wherever it was contemplated to insulate any provision from H

140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] JO S.C.R.

A challenge, expressed provisions have been made to provide for such insulation. Article 31 B is one of such examples which provides that none of the Acts and Regulations specified in IXth Schedule shall be deemed to be void or ever to have become void on the ground of such Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with or lakes away or abridges any of the rights B conferred by Part Ill. The Constitutional Scheme as delineated by Part XIII docs not indicate that a particular type of legislation, i.e., compensatory tax is out of Part XIII. Reading any such protection to compensatory tax legislation is against the constitutional provision. The compensatory theory as evolved in c A11to111obile 'J'ramport is not compatible to the constitutional scheme and a compensatory tax legislation cannot be insulated from challenge under Part XIIJ of the Constitution. It is always open to scrutinize the true nature and character of legislation to decipher as to whether it contains any restriction on freedom of ]) trade, cornmei-cc :rnd intercourse violating Article 301. A legislation which is compensatory in nature may shed light while determining whether it contains restriction on trade, commerce and intercourse or facilitate the trade, commerce and intercourse. But all legislations be it a compensatory tax legislation or otherwise has to be tested in accordance with provisions of Part XJII of the Constitution. The ratio of judgment of Automobile Transport is overruled in so far as it lays down that the compensatory tax legislations are out of part XIII of the Constitution. !Paras 357, 3581[849-G-H; 850-A-D]

F .ltialwri Tea Co. Ud. v. State of .1.ssam & Ors. 1961 SCR 809; Automohile Jhmsport (Rajasthan) Ltd. etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.1963 SCR 491 - Partly ove1..-ulecl. (".'J Jindal Stripe Ltd. and Am'. \'. State of Harvana and Ors. 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 154 : (2003) 8 SCC 60; Jindal Stainless Ltd (2) and Aw v. State ofHarvana and Ors. 2006 (3) SCR 1095 : (2006) 7 SCC 241; Jindal Strips Umited v. State of Harvana 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 569 H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 141

: 2006 (7) SCC 271; Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. A State (?f Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 2008 (17) SCR 1282 : (2009) 7 SCC 339; Jindal Stainless Limited and Am: v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2010 (4) SCR 743 : (2010) 4 SCC 595; Mis. Rhagatram Rajeev Kumar v. Commissioner uf Sales Tax. MP. and Ors. 1994 (6) B Suppl. SCR 91: 1995 Supp (1) SCC 673; Slate ofBihar and Ors. v. Bihar Chamber of Commerce and Ors. 1996

(2) SCR 1S4 : (1996) 9 SCC 136 - referred to. Case Law Reference Per T.S. Thakur, C.JI (for himself and A.K. Sikri and A.M. C Khanwilkar, .JJ.)

1961 SCR S09 overruled Para2 1963 SCR 491 overruled Para2 D 1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 91 referred to Para2 1996 (2) SCR 1S4 referred to Para2 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 154 referred .to Para3 200S (17) SCR 12S2 referred to Para 7 E 2010 (4) SCR 743 referred to Paras 1965 SCR 90S referred to Paras 1975 (2) SCR 715 referred to Para S 1992 (1) SCR 6S6 referred to Para 11 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 5S7 referred to Para 11 F 1979 (l) SCR 26 referred to Para 11 1973 Suppl. SCR I referred to Para 11 1963 SCR 220 relied on Para 15 2000 (3) SCR 509 relied on Para 16 G . 2009 (S) SCR 9S3 relied on Para 17 19S3 (3) SCR 130 affirmed Para 19 2004 (1) SCR 564 relied on Para 19 H

142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 10 S.C.R.

A 2012 (4) SCR 448 relied on Para 19 1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 623 relied on Para 20 1955 SCR 164 affirmed Para 28 1966 Suppl. SCR 81 affirmed Para 28 R 1994 (2) SCR 644 relied on Para 33 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 1 referred to Para 34 1965 SCR 413 relied on Para 36 1958 SCR 1422 relied on Para 38 c AIR 1991 Patna 75 referred lo Para 63 1954 SCR 1005 referred to Para 64 1954 SCR 1046 referred to Para 64 1961 SCR 537 referred to Para 64 1965 SCR 477 referred to Para 64 D 1979 (3) SCR 1217 referred to Para 64 1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 392 referred to Para 64 2004 (3) SCR 956 referred to Para 64 2004 (1) SCR 564 referred to Para 64 E 1987 (2) SCRl relied on Para 74 2002 (1) SCR 441 relied on Para 81 1981 (2) SCR 364 relied on Para 83 1951 SCR 127 relied on Para 92 F 1961 SCR 77 relied on Para 94 AIR 1955 SC 3 relied on Para 95 1963 SCR 778 referred to Para 95 1968 SCR 829 relied on Para 112 G 1963 SCR 220 referred to Para 116 1989 (2) SCR 918 referred to Para 116 AIR 1959 SC 894 referred to Para 116 1980 (1) SCR 804 referred to Para 116 H

,tNDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 143

1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 947 referred to Para 116 A 2006 (3) SCR 1095 overruled Para 126 (t 996) 2 sec 39 distinguished Para 130 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 731 affirmed Para 131 1952 SCR 435 affirmed Para 132 B 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 585 referred to Para 137 1963 SCR 809 referred to Para 138 1977 (l) SCR 1065 referred to Para 139 1983 (2) SCR 1009 referred to Para 140 c (1966) 1 SCR 865 held inapplicable Para 122

Per S. A. Bobde, J.

D 1961 SCR 809 referred to Para3

Per Shiva Kirti Singh, J.

E 1961 SCR 809 Not good law Para3 1963 SCR 491 Not good law Para3

Per N. V. Ramana, J. F 1961 SCR 809 Not good law Para 1.1 1963 SCR 49 Not good law Para 1.1 1975 (2) SCR 715 reforrecl to Para 1.1 1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 91 referred to Para 1.1 G 1996 (2) SCR 184 referred to Para 1.1 2006 (3) SCR 1095 referred to Para 1.1 2008 (17) SCR 1282 referred to Para 1.1, 2.1 H

144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.CR.

A 2010 (4) s.c.c 595 referred to Para 1.1, 2.1 [20031 129 S.T.C 534 referred to Para 1.2 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 154 referred to Para 2.1 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 569 referred to Para 2.1 B (2009) 21 V.S.T 10 (P&H) referred to Para 2.1 1964 SCR 787 referred to Para 2.2 1965 SCR 908 referred to Para 2.2 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 1054 referred to Para 2.2 c 1964 SCR 99 referred to Para 4.2 1967 SCR 762 referred to Para 4.2 1966 SCR 744 referred to Para 4.2 1967 SCR 170 referred to Para 4.2 1970 (3) SCR 530 referred to Para 4.2 D' 1971 (3) SCR 9 referred to Para 4.2 1973 Suppl. SCR 1 referred to Para 4.2 1975 (1) SCR 173 referred lo Para 4.2 1992 Supp. (3) S.C.C 215 referred to Para 4.2 E 1993 (3) SCR 669 referred to Para 4.2 (1994) 3 S.C.C J refened to Para 4.2 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 585 referred to Para 4.2 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 472 referred to Para 4.2 F 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 referred to Para 4.2 2007 (1) SCR 706 referred to Para 4.2 1987 (2) SCR 1 referred to Para 5.1 1939 FCR 18 referred to Para 5.2 G 1986 (1) SCR 399 referred to Para 5.3 1981 (I) SCR 206 refetTed to Para 5.4 11964] I SCR 371 referred to Para 5.8 [19781 2 SCR 1 referred to Para 5.8 H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 145

1965 SCR 413 referred to Para 5.8 A 2002 (1) SCR 441 referred to Para 5.8 1973 Suppl. SCR 1 relied on Para 5.8 2004 (1) SCR 564 referred to Para 5.8 1963 SCR 220 referred to Para 6.1 B 2000 (3) SCR 509 referred to Para 6.1 2009 (8) SCR 983 referred to Para 6.1 (1921) 62 S.C.R 424 referred to Para 7.27 (1964) 5 SCR 975 referred to Para 7.35 c 1980 <4) sec 463 referred to Para 7.38 1955 SCR 164 referred to Para 7.40 1958 SCR 1422 referred to Para 7.40 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 731 affirmed Para 8.16 D

Per R. Banumatbi, J.

2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 154 referred to Para5 E 2008 (17) SCR 1282 referred to Para6 2010 (4) SCR 743 referred to Para 6 2011 (13) SCR 636 referred to Para 13, 30 2012 (4) SCR 448 referred to Para 14 1973 Suppl. SCR 1 followed Para 31 F

1992 (1) SCR 686 relied 011 Para 31 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 relied on Para 32 (1963) l SCR 220 relied on Para 38 2004 (1) SCR 564 relied on Para 39 G 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 381 relied 011 Para 39 (1991) 4 sec 139 relied ou Para 39 1992 (2) SCR 13 relied on Para 39 H

146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A 2000 (3) SCR 509 relied on Para 39 1989 (2) SCR 880 referred to Para 41 1955 SCR 164 referred to Para 43 1985 (2) SCR 287 affirmed Para 50 B 1988 (2) SCR 49 affirmed Para 51 1994 (1) SCR 682 affirmed Para 51 (1964) 1 SCR 897 relied on Para 56 1966 SCR 22 relied on Para 57 c 1954 SCR 1005 relied on Para 60 1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 110 relied on Para 60 2004 (3) SCR 956 relied on Para 60 1989 (2) SCR 918 relied on Para 61 1989 (2) SCR 893 relied on Para 62 D 1961 SCR 809 overruled Para 64 (1963) 1 SCR 491 overruled Para 67 2013 (13) SCR 464 relied on Para 91 1950 SCR 88 relied on Para 92 E (2002) 8 sec 182 affirmed Para 100 1963 SCR Suppl. (2) 216 referred to Para 106 119611 3 SCR 242 referred to Para 109 1995 (2) SCR 900 referred to Para 109 f 1988 (2) SCR 574 referred to Para 123 1988 (3) SCR 768 referred to Para 124 1997 (1) SCR 914 not good law Para 125 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 731 affirmed Para 127 G (1952) SCR 435 affirmed Para 137 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 356 not good law Para 139 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 428 affirmed Para 140 1963 Suppl. SCR 435 referred to Para 140 H

JINDAL STAlNLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 147

(1968) 3 SCR 829 referred to Para 140 A (1966) 1 SCR 865 not good law Para 146 1970 (1) SCR 700 referred to Para 147 AlR 1942 FC 33 relied on Para 162 AIR 1945 PC 98 referred to Para 163 B

1950 SCR 15 referred to Para 164 2005 (2) SCR 1038 relied on Para 165 1983 (3) SCR 130 relied on Para 166 2004 (1) SCR 564 relied on c Para 166 AIR 1942 FC 33 relied on Para 169 AIR 1951 SC 318 relied on Para 169 (1954) SCR 53 relied on Para 169 D 1984 (2) SCR 664 relied on Para 170 1975 (2) SCR 715 referred to Para 181 1981 (2) SCR 364 referred to Para 182 1996 (2) SCR 184 affirmed Para 184 E 2015 (9) SCR 148 referred to Para 186 1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 392 referred to Para 186 1990 (2) SCR 13 referred to Para 186 2006 (3) SCR 1095 overruled Para 191 F 1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 91 affirmed Para 191 (1990) 1 sec 109 referred to Para 194 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 146 referred to Para 194 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 585 relied on Para 196 G

2005 (1) SCR 732 relied on Para 197

148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) I0 S.C.R.

A Per Dr. D. Y. ehandrachud, J.

1975 (1) SeR 173 cited Para 1 1992 Supp. (3) sec 215 cited Para 1 B 1993 (3) SCR 669 cited Para 1 (t 994) 3 sec 1 cited Para I (1994) 5 sec 54 cited Para 1 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 585 cited Para l c 1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 400 cited Para 1 2007 (1) SeR 706 cited Para 1 (1961) 1 SCR 809 partly affirmed Para 35 (1963) 1 SCR 491 partly affirmed Para 35 (1964) 5 SeR 975 referred to Para 77 D 1972 (2) SCR 853 referred to Para 82 1975 (2) SCR 138 referred to Para 82 1975 (2) SCR 715 referred to Para 84 1981 (2) SCR 364 referred to Para 83 E 1983 (2) SCR 1009 referred to Para 82 1983 AIR 1283 referred to Para 82 1983 (3) SeR 624 referred to Para 82 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 482 referred to Para 82 F 1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 91 referred to · Para 89 1981 (I) SCR 823 referred to Para 90 1996 (2) SCR 184 referred to Para 91 l 989 (1) Suppl. SCR 692 referred to Para 91 G 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 154 referred to Para 93 2006 (3) SCR 1095 referred to Para 93 1992 (1) SCR 686 relied on Para 112 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 relied on Para 112 H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 149

119641 I SCR 371 referred to Para 115 A (1961) 1 SCR 413 referred to Para 117 1994 (2) SCR 644 referred to Para 118 2002 (1) SCR441 referred to Para 119 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 1 referred to Para 119 B 2012 (4) SCR 448 referred to Para 124 1964 SCR 897 referred to Para 128 1992 (2) SCR 13 referred to Para 128 2000 (3) SCR 509 referred to Para 128 c 1955 SCR 164 referred to Para 129 1966 Suppl. SCR 81 referred to Para 129 (1953) 1 BLJR 48 referred to Para 131 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 472referred to Para 137 D 1985 (2) SCR 287 referred to Para 140 1987 (1) SCR 232 referred to Para 141 (1988) 1 sec 266 referred to Para 131 1989 (2) SCR 893 referred to Para 141 E 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 602 referred to Para 141 (1986) Supp. I sec 201 referred to Para 142 1958 SCR 1422 referred to Para 147 1968 SCR 829 referred to Para 150 1974 (3) SCR l referred to Para 151 F (1964) 4 SCR 280 referred to Para 153

(1953) 4 SCR 1069

. referred to Para 154 1986 (3) SCR 866 referred to Para 155 (1964) 4 SCR 280 referred to Para 155 G (1951) 2 SCR 127 referred to Para 173 1961 (3) SCR 77 referred to Para 174 1962 (2) SCR 983 referred to Para 174 H

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 10 S.C.R.

A (1962) Su11p. (2) SCR 1 referred to Para 174 (1963) 1 SCR 220 referred to Para 175 1989 (2) SCR 918 referred to Para 179 1963 SCR 704 referred to Para 188 B (1963) Suppl.(2) SCR 435referred to Para 190 1964 SCR 217 referred to Para 191 (1968) 3 SCR 829 referred to Para 192 (1966) 1 SCR 865 referred to Para 194 c (1970) 1 SCR 700 referred to Para 195 (1969) 2 SCR 544 referred to Para 196 1977 (1) SCR 1065 referred to Para 197 1981 (1) SCR 823 referred to Para 198 1988 (3) SCR 768 referred to Para 199 D 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 731 referred to Para 200 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 356 referred to Para203,211 (1961) 3 SCR 242 relied on Para 217 (1961) 3 SCR 707 referred to Para 221 E (1963) Supp. 2 SCR 216 referred to Para 222 1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 98 relied on Para 230 1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 770 relied on Para 242 2007 (9) SCR 147 referred to Para 242 r 2002 (3) SCR 278 referred to Para 242 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 428 referred to Para 245 1942 F.C.R.90 referred to Para 251 AIR (1945) PC 98 referred to Para 251 G 1950 SCR 15 referred to Para 252 (1962) Supp. 1 SCR 282 referred to Para 252 1980 (1) SCR 804 referred to Para 253 1972 (2) SCR 33 referred to Para 254 H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 151

1996 (2) SCR 145 referred to Para 254 A 1980 (3) SCR 1 referred to . Para 255 2005 (1) SCR 732 referred to Para 255 (2004) 10 sec 2011 referred to Para 256 (1963) 3 SCR 787 referred to Para 256 B (1970) 1 sec 248 referred to Para 263 (1950) 1 SCR 88 referred to Para 263 1973 (2) SCR 757 referred to Para 263 1978 (2) SCR 621 referred to Para 264 c Per Ashok Bhushan , J.

1961 SCR 809 partly overruled Para 35 D 1963 SCR 491 partly overruled Para 3, 7 1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 91 referred to Para 12 · 1996 (2) SCR 184 referred to Para 12 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 154 referred to Para 13 E 2006 (3) SCR 1095 referred to Para 14 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 569 referred t<i Para 15 2008 (17) SCR 1282 referred to Para 17 2010 (4) SCR 743 referred to Para 17 1965 SCR 908 referred to P~1ra 62 F

1975 (2) SCR 715 referred to Para 63 (1960) 3 SCR 887 referred to Para 117 2005 (1) SCR 732 referred to Para 121 (1965) 1 SCR 413 referred to Para 164 G 1973 Suppl. SCR 1 followed Para 165 1978 (1) SCR 1 referred to Para 167 1994 (2) SCR 644 referred to Para 169 H

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

/\ 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR J referred t.o Para 172 2012 (4) SCR 448 relied on Para 180 (1961) 3 SCR 77 relied on Para 182 1966 SCR 22 relied on Para 184 B J 974 (3) SCR 1 referred to Para 191 1975 (2) SCR 715 referred to Para 192 1973 Suppl. SCR 1 referred to Para 200 1968 (3) SCR 829 referred to Para 200 c 1966 1 SCR 865 referred to Para 223 [20071 7 VST 367 Madras referred to Para 234 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 555 referred to Para 243 1988 (3) SCR 768 referred to Para 258 .D 1988 (2) SCR 574 referred to Para 260 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 731 elarilied Para 262 1990 (Suppl.) sec 617 referred to Para 267 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 356 referred to Para 268 1963 SCR 704 distinguished Para 271 I·: 1990 (2) SCR 659 affirmed Para 276 1981 (l) SCR 823 referred to Para 286 1963 2 SCR 435 affirmed Para 293 1988 (2) SCR 574 referred to Para 293 F 1%4 (6) SCR 261 affirmed Para 297 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 356 referred to Para 297 1952 SCR 607 referred to Para 298 1981 (3) SCR 92 referred to Para 300 G 1989 (2) SCR 918 referred to Para 302 (1964) 5 SCR 975 referred to Para 320 1954 SCR 1005 referred to Pam 324 1957 SCR 874 relied on Para 351 H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 153

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3453 A of 2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2001 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 6630 of 2000 B WITH C. A. Nos. 6383-6421, 6422-6435, 6436, 6437-6440of1997, C.A. Nos. 3381-3400, 3592, 4651 ofl998, C.A. No. 918of1999, c C.A. Nos. 2769 and 4471 of2000, C.A. No. 3314 of2001, C.A. Nos. 3454, 3455, 3456-3459, 3460, 3461, 3462-3463, 3464, 3465,3466, 3467,3468,3469,3470,3471,4008,5385,5740,5858of 200~ D W.P. (C) Nos. 512 and 574 of2003, C.A. Nos. 2608, 2633, 2637, 2638, 3720-3722, 6331, 8241, 8242, 8243,8244,8245, 8246,8247,8248,8249,8250,8251,8252, 1956of 2003, E T.C. (C) No. 13 of 2004,

W.P. (C) No. 66 and 221 of 2004, C.A. Nos. 997-998, 3144, 3145, 3146, 4953, 4954, 5139, 5141, 5142,5143,5144,5145,5147,5148,5149,5150,5151,5152,5153,5154, F 5155,5156,5157,5158,5159,5160,5162,5163,5164,5165,5166,5167, 5168, 5169, 5170, 7658 of 2004, SLP(C) Nos. 9479, 9496, 9569, 9832, 9883, 9885, 9891, 9893, 9898,9899,9901,9904,9910, 9911,9912,9950,9964,9976,9989,9991, 9993,9998,9999, 10003, 10007, 10129, 10133, 10134, 10153, 10154, G 10156, 10161, 10164, 10167, 10206, 10207, 10232, 10366, 10381, 10382, 10384, 10385, 10391, 10402, 10403, 10404, 10407, 10417, 10449, 10493, 10495, 10497. 10501, 10505, 10539, 10557, 10563, 10566. 10567, 10568, 10569, 10571, 10704. 10706,10708, 10736, 10906, 10907, 10909, 10908, 10910, 10923, 10929, 10977, 11012, 11266, 11271, 11274, 11281, 11320, 11326, 11328, 11329, 11370 of 2004, H

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I 0 S.C.R.

A SLP(C) No. 14380 of2005, SLP(C) Nos. 1101, 1288, 6914, 9054, 10694, 12959, 13806, 14070, 14819, 14820, 14821, 14823, 14824, 14826, 14828, 14829, 14830, 14832, 14833, 14835, 14837, 14838, 14839, 14841, 14842, 14845, 14846, 14847, 15082-15085, 15807, 16351, 17589,17590, 17905, 17906, 17907, 17908, B 17909, 17910, 17911, 17913, 17914, 17915, 17916, 17917, 17918, 17919, 17920, 17921,17922, 17923, 17924,17925, 17926, 17929, 17930,17933, 17934, 17936, 17937, 17938,17939,17941, 17942, 17943, 17944, 17957, 17959, 17960, 17961, 17962, 17963, 17964, 17965, 17972, 17973, 17974, 17975, 17976,17977, 17978,17979,17980, 17981,17983, 17984, 18036, c 18037, 18038, 18039, 18040, 18041, 18042, 18043, 18044, 18045, 18046, 18047, 18048, 18049, 18050, 18051, 18053, 18054, 18055, 18056, 18057, 18058, 18059, 18061, 18062, 18063,18064, 18065, 18066, 18067,18068, 18069, 18073, 18074, 18075, 18076, 18077, 18078, 18079, 18080, 18081, 18082, 18083, 18084, 18085, 18086, 18087, 18088, 18089, 18090, 18091, 18092, 19049,19050, 19051,19052, 19053, 19055, 19057, 19059, 19060, D 19062, 19064,19066, 19068, 19070,19071, 19072, 19073, 19074, 19076, 19077, 19094, 19095, 19096, 19099,19100, 19101, 19102, 19103, 19104, 19105, 19106, 19107, 19108, 19110, 19111, 19113, 19114, 19505, 19506, 19507, 19508, 19510, 19511, 19512, 19513, 19514, 19515, 19516, 19518, 19521, 19522, 19523-19528, 19529, 19530, 19531, 19543-19547,20527, E 20529, 20559, 21841, 21843, 21844, 21845, 21846, 21847, 21848, 21849, 21851,21855,218~4,21866, 21867,21871-21904,21905,21907,21908, 21909, 21910, 22947, 22958, 24934-25066 of2007, SLP(C) Nos. 742, 746, 747, 3230, 3231, 3233, 3234, 3236, 3237, 3238-3262 of2008, F C.A. Nos. 4715, 5041-5042 of 2008, SLP(C) Nos. 5407, 5408, 6148-6152, 6831, 7914, 8053-8077, 8199, 9227, 12424-12425, 13327, 13889, 14232-14252, 14454-14778, 14828, 14829, 14875, 15047, 15078, 15090, 15161, 15164, 15179, 15253, 15273, 15274, 15286-15287, 15288-15289, 15324, 15325, 15326, 15327, 15328, G 15329, 15330, 15331,15335, 15337, 15356, 15357, 15369,15405, 15491, 15492, 15493, 15495, 15496, 15498, 15540, 15551,15579, 15605, 15618, 15623, 15628, 15629, 15630, 15631, 15632, 15633, 15636,15643, 15647, 15652, 15653, 15655, 15656, 15657, 15659,15660, 15666, 15684, 15700, 15711, 15819, 15845, 15934,16664, 16667, 16689, 16733, 16754, 16832, H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 155 l6837, 16841, 16865, 16885, 16926, 16930, 17187, 17192, 17193, 17203, A 17204, 17233, 17267, 17269,17271, 17272, 17274, 17276,17277, 17279, 17280,17282. 17367, 17368, 17369,17370,17372, 17373, 17374, 17375, l7376, 17377, 17408, 17865, 17892, 18001, 18030, 18034, 18035, 18040, l8066-18067, 18344, 18346, 18354, 18360-18364, 18379, 18405,18532, 18533, 18582, 18684-18714, 18850, 18857, 18865, 18870, 18871,19019, B 19026, 19030, 19049, 19120, 19141, 19372,19421, 19425,19460, 19470, 19714, 19722, 19731, 19737, 19802, 19847, 19849, 19867, 19873, 19876, 19986,20068,20089,20165,20766,20795,21107,21117-21125,21127, 21506,21509,21510,21819,22081,22083,22084,22086,22100-22101, 22195,22707,22735,22931,23075,23077,23270,23277,23383,23609, 23623,25378,25498,26377,26543,26571,26572,26593,26750,26813, c 26972, 27442-27444, 27606, 27927, 29194, 29196, 29561-29570, 29763, 29764, 30276, 30533, 30534-30540, 30542, 8204 of 2008, SLP(C) ... CC No. 15314 of2008, SLP(C) ... cc Nos. 2867, 5143, 5311, 5803 of2009, D SLP(C) Nos. 3276, 4720, 5371, 5376, 5381, 5383, 5384, 5393, 5395,5396.5399,5401,5403,5405,5406,5408,5409,5410,5411,5412, 5413,5414,5420,5421,5422,5424,5426,5493-5494,5495,5883,6254, 6669,6670,6675,6676,6682,6683,6684,6685,6686,6687,6688,6689, 6690,6692,6693,6694,6696,6698,6699,6700,6701,6702,6703,6704, E 6705,6708,6709,6710,6711,6712,6713,6714-6715,6953,7345,8244, 9548,9699, 10040, 10041, 10042, 10045, 10047, 10048, 10049, 10050, 10051, 10053-10054, 10192, 10279,10952, 10954-10956, 11042, 11122, 11603-11611, 11646, 12948, 13270-13274, 13483, 13496, 13517, 13611-13612, 14429, 14484, 14488, 14623, 14856, 14949, 15723, l6253, 16757-16760, 16784, 16789. 16888-16898, 17332-17333, F 17394-17396, 17488, 17490, 17491, 17492-17498, 17722, 17731,17744, 19695,22293,22295,22302,22303,22304,22306,22307,22308,22309, 22310,22311,22312,22313,22316,22317,22318,22320,22321,22322, 22323,22324,22325,22408,22425,22428,23990,24149,24430,24822, 25157,25390,25399-25400,25467,25470,25474,25753,25797,26116, G 26236,26509,27883,28509,28583,28696,28775,29597,29868,30383, 30746-30845,30847,31410,31411,31412,33176,33663-33665,33672, 34253,34859,35038,35585,35587,35740,35742,35743-35746,35747, 35749,35750,35751,35752, 35753,35754,35755,35756,35757,36193, 36196, 36219, 36271, 16116, 30594 of 2009, H

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016j 10 S.C.R.

A W.P. (C) Nos. 11, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 63, 71 of 2010, SI.P(C) Nos. 104, 245, 247, 248, 1820, 1876, 2459, 3387, 4102, 4362.4388,4389,4390,4511,4572,4720,5151,5308,5309,6037,6723, 6762, 6763, 6765, 6770, 6811, 7356, 7426, 7776, 7929, 9022, 9077, 9702. 9723, 10361, 11419, 11423, 12690, 14845, 14886, 15015, 15903, 16694, B I <>720, 18318. 18834, 19194, 19199, 19217, 22327, 22520, 23836, 29578, 36486 of 20 I 0, SLP(C) ... cc Nos. 886, 1082 of2010, C.A. No. 5343-5344 of2010, C W.P. (C) Nos. 31, 497 of2011, C.A. Nos. 905, 2041, 2042, 9900-9903 of 2011, SLl'(C) Nos. 1308, 3433, 4730, 4743, 4747, 4750, 5094, 5105, 5106,5110,5112.6351,6492,8571,9758, 12605, 13451, 13525, 13526, 14144, 14269,14342, 18858, 18859,18862, 18863, 18864,33344of2011 D SLl'(C) ... CC No. 2103 of 2011, W.P.(C) Nos. 278, 290 of 2012, C.A.No.4210,5860,5861,8275,8278,8280,8283,8284,8286, 8290,8292,8294,8295,8296,8297,8298,8299,8300,8301,8302,8303, E 8304,8305,8306,8307,8308,8309,8311,8312,8313,83!4,8315,8316, 8333,8734,8735,8736,8737,8738,8739,8740,8741,8744,8745,8832, 8833,8834,8836,8837,8839,8840,8841,8842,8843,8844,8845,8846, 9148,9149,9150,9151,9152,9153,9154,9155,9156,9157,9158,9159, 9160, 9161, 9162, 9163, 9164, 9165, 916(i, 9167, 9168, 9169, 9170, 9292, F 'J293 of 2012, SLP(C) Nos. 16535-16536, 16538, 18602, 28173, 33954, 36187, 37455,37680,37708-37709,37712,37728,38304,38919,39998,40146, 40147, 33923 of 2012, T.C. (C) No. 149 of 2013, G SLP(C) Nos. 449, 1426, 8939, 9844, 10466, 10516, 10879, 11060, 16744-16746, 16867, 16869, 16870,27001-27002,30986,32256,33600 of2013,

JINDAL STAINLESS LJ'D. v. STATE Of HARYANA 157

C.A. Nos. 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548 of A 2013, C.A. Nos. 1838, 9216, 9214 of2014, SLP(C) No. 29119 of2014, SLP(C) No. 208, 2 J 2. 315-317, 320, 336, 352, 376, 411- 421, 380, B 437,445.457,508,510,567,561-562,585,621,638,641,661,664,662, 669,668,671,672,675.674,683,690-691,684-686,693-694,712,1270, 1424, 1596, 1631, 1714, 1851-1852, 1943-2001,2038,2054,2063-2065, 2081,4557,4581.91,4657,5046,5107,5131,5143,5375,5447,5610, 5966, 6086, 6143, 6158, 6240-6243, 6565, 6575, 6631, 4600, 5007, 6728, 6754-6755,6823,6907,6909-6910,6939,6956,4386, 7319,7957-7958, c 8089, 2483, 8248, 8325, 8350-8351, 8527, 9585, 11830, 8798, 9584, 5311-5329, 11204-11205,9164,9167,9176,9181,11832,9188,9348,5908, 9484, 9582, 7874, 11080- 11086, 12839, 11156, 11170, 12844, 8162, 11484, 12847, 11582, 11592,13200,13201,4219-4227,2966-2999,11888,11203, 14828, 14854, 15856,15857,15858, 11458-11465,18213,18333,16312, D 18334, 18335, 15855, 18338,18184, 18179,8775-8777,5303,16853,21720, 23673-23674,23764,23765, 15353,22349,21718,24547,23757,26751, 9117,2214,2531,2289,2530,2392,2499,2502,2538-2543,2426,2358, 2401,2389,2485,2495,3163-3164,3666,3679,3723,3321,4198-4199, 3325,3466,3635,3318,30396,2636,2680,2952,2641,2588,2928,2737, E 2682, 8197-8 l 98, 4197of2015, C.A. No. 8240 of2015, C.A.Nos. 110, 109,583.3925,5534,5536,5137,5537,5538,5533, 4642-4643 of 2016 and F SLP(C) Nos. 4945, 8253, 2057, 86, 72, 14539-14541, 16820 of 2016. Mukul Rohatgi, Ju gal Kishore Gilda, AGs, P. S. Narsimha, Maninder Singh, Tushar Mehta, ASGs., Harish N.Salye, S. K. Bagaria, A. K. Ganguli, T. R.Andhyarujina, Arvind Vanna, Kavin Gulati, Rakesh G Kr. Khanna, Rakesh Dwivedi, Jagdeep Dhankar, Ashok K Parija, V. Giri, N. Venkatraman. Dinesh Dwivedi, Amit Singh Chadha, Ravindra Shrivastava, Ashok K Gupta, S. B. Upadhyay, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Arvind P. Datar, Gopal Jain. Shyam Diwan, P. P. Rao, Dr. J. N. Dubey, Ashok K Parija, Dhruv Agarwal, Ajit Kr. Sinha, Vivek K Tankha, Guru H

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A Krishna Kumar, Subramonium Prasad, Jagabandhu Sahoo,Anil K. Kher, Dr. .J. N. Dubey, Arvind Varma, Ms. Kiran Suri, Sudhir Gupta, Sr. Advs., S. S. Shamshery, Suryanarayana Singh, Devadatt Kamat, Ms. Nidhi Gupta, Alok Sang wan. Pushpendra Kaurav, Shiv Mangal Sharma, C. D. Singh, Edward Belho, AAGs., A. T. M. Sampath, Ms. fereshte D.Setlma, B Tushar Jarwal, Sachit Jolly, Rahul Sateeja, Gautam Swarup, Ms. Tanya Chanda, Aditya Sarin. Ms. Gayatri Goswami. Karan Lahiri, Mmuneet Singh Gulati. Ms. Vijay Lakshmi Menon, Mahesh Agarwal, Ms. Neha Nagpi!l, Ms. Shally Bhasin. Shashank Manish, Ms. Shruti Garg, E. C. Agrawala, Syed Slrnhid Hussain Rizvi, Sanjeev K Singh, N.A. Usmani, Sunil K Jain, Pawanshree Agrawal, Hibekananda Mohanti, Ajit Kumar c Singh, Akarsh Garg, T. N. Durga Prasad, Nikhil Nayyar, Arnboj Agrawal, N. Sai Vinod, Ms. Smriti Shah, Divyanshu Rai, Arunabh Ganguli, Raj iv Agnihotri, Rajesh Kumar, R. K. Srivastava, P. N. Srivastava, K. S. Mahadevan, Devavrat Anand, Ms. Poonam Kumari, Ms. Mala Dubey, Krishnakumar R. S., K. K. L. Gautam, U. A. Rana, Mrinal Elkar D Mazumdar, 1-!imanshu Mehta, Sidharth Sijoria, Avirat Kumar (for Mis. Gagrat & Co.), Anand S. Pathak, Amit K Mishra, Akshat lfansaria, Ms. Hima Lawrence, Kesav Raychaudhari, Vinay P Singh, Ms. Aditi Mohan, Ms. Ajita Tandon, Ms. Kopal Shrivastava, Sunil Kumar Jain, Shaantanu Jain, Pravcen Kumar, Ms. Babita Sant, Kartik Kurmy, Kumar Ajit Singh, Ms. Sunaina Kumar, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, R. N. Karanjawala, Vishal Gehraria, Chahat Chawla, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Milinda Sharma (for Mis. Karanjawala & Co.), Ro hit Sthalekar, D. K.Gandhi, Ms. Vasudha /,utshi, Anish Agarwal, Avi Tandon, T. Mahipal, Shekhar Sharma, Puneet Agrawal, Dr. Rashmi Khanna, G. L. Bhatti, Pranav Vyas, Ms. Shefali Jain, Anirudh Tanwar, Surya Kant, Vikram Hegdc, F Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Barnali Basak, Ms. Narmada Singh, Anurag Rana, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Ms. J'reetika Dwivedi, Rajesh Kumar, Ms. Apurva Upmanyu, Ms. Apoorva Garg, Kedar Nath Tripathy, M.A. Aleem Majid, Ms. PriyankaParida, Gaurav Kejriwal, Sujit Keshri,Avnish Kr. Sharma. Harsh Trivedi, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala (for Mis. G Karanjawala & Co.), M. P. Devanath, Abbay A. Jena. Ms. Bina Gupta, G. Prakash, Jishnu M. L., Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Mohammed Sadique T. A., Svadha Shankar. Manav Vohra, .J. Krishna Dev, Ms. Beena Prakash, Manu Srinath. Siddhesh Kotwal, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar. Raghunatha Sethupathy, Ms. Urvashi Sandhu, Nirnimesh Dube, Mahcsh Agarwal, Sayaree Basu Mallik, Chaitnaya, H

INDAL STAINLESS lJ'D. v. STATE OF HARYANA 159

Lakshmeesh Kamath, Abhimanyu Tiwari, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, A Kalinder Mishra, Ashish Kumar Sinha. Shree Pal Singh, S. Nanda Kumar, Parivesh Singh. P. Srinivasan, Sanand Ramakrishnan, Rajeev Mishra, Prateek Gupta, Parmanand Pandey, Anup Kumar Mishra, Ms. Jayashri Venkataraman. \/. Ubhaya Bharthi, Minchu Mariam Punnoose, Cynduja Crislman, Ganjcndra Maheshwari. Ms. Prema Chopra, Ms. Swati Thapa, B Parivesh Singh. Subblrn Somu, Ranjeet Singh, \/. N. Raghupathy, Narendera M Sharma, Ms. Prachi Johri. Abhishek Sharma. Ms. Sakshi Mchley, Ms. Prachi Gupta, Ra.iesh Prasad Singh, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Vibhu Tiwari, Sunil K Jain, Pawanshree Agarwal, Shaantanu Jain. Dileep Tandon, Shailesh Madiyal, Ms. Neha Tandon. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Tarun Gulati, Sparsh Bhargava, Neil c Hildreth. Shashi Mathews, Kishore Kuna!, Anupam Mishra, Ms. Ishita Parsaiya, Ankit Sachdeva. Ms. Rachana Yadav, Rony 0. John, Ms. Vipin Upadhayay, Nikhil Gupta, Rahul Jain, Manish Rastogi, Pranav Bansal, R. Chandrachud, B. R. Menon. Rohit Choudhary, Ms. Preeti Khewani, Ms. B. Vijay Lakshmi Menon. Ms. Kaadambari Singh Puri. Ms. Abha D Sinha. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Kumar Gaurav, Dr. Farrukh Khan, Ms. Rubina Jawed. Vir Bahadur Singh, Hitesh Kumar Shanm. Ms. Shanti Kumar Jaisani. R. P.Goyal. Kapil Joshi, Amit Pai, Arun S. Bhati, Suraj Prakash Singh. Divyesh Pratap Singh, Ms. Kriti Joshi, Mrs. Mm1ju Shanna Jelley, Mrs. Vanita Bhargava, Ajay Bhargava, Jeevan Ballav Panda, E Ms. Abhisaar Bairagi. Anshuman Sharma, Ms. Abhisaar Bairagi (for Mis Khaitan & Co.), Ms. Yugandhara Jha, Ms. Prasanna Mohan, Pulkit Tare, Siddharth Shrivastava, Kuna! Venna, M.A. Krishna Moorthy, Kuna! Verma, Ritin Rai, Prateek Rath.\/. K. Monga, Azim H. Laskar, Sachin Das, A. \/. Manavalan, Ms. Sampa Sengupta Ray, PR Abal, Pratap Singh Solanki,Abhijit Sengupta, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Ms. Udita Singh, F Ms. Preeti Singh, S.P. Singh Chauhan. Gagan Deep Sharma, Satya Prakash. Kapil Dahiya, Nikhil Jain, Deepak Kanwar, S. \/(jay Kanth. Vipin Maurya. Sudhir Kumar, Ms. Firoza Matta, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Vijay K. Gupta. P. K. Manohar. Rahul Kaushik, K. C. Kaushik, Mrs. Rhuvneshwari Pathak, Mrs. Shilpi Satya Priya Satyam, Sanjay Grover, G Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Rajesh Kumar. Ms. Poonam Kumari, Krishna KLimar R. S .. K. K. L. Gautam, Vinod Pandey, K. S. Mahadevan, R. K. Srivastava. P. N. Srivastava, Shiv Lal Singh, Balaji Srinivasan, Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Nishant Bishnoi, Rajeev Singhal, Saurabh Singhal, Vishal Gehraria, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, S. K. Sarkar, Ms. Madhavi Shanna, H

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12016] 10 S.C.R.

A Balkrishan Shanna,Abinash Kumar, Md. ZiauddinAhmad, Pankaj Ghiya, Milan Ghiya, Suman Yadav, Ms.Aakanksha Muqjlrnl, Harsh Trivedi (Ml s Karanjawala & Co.), S. S. Ray, Vaibhav G., Ms. Rakhi Ray, T. K. Majumdar. Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Sankar Ch. Ghosh, V. N. Koura, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Ms. Paramjeet Benipal, Sumit Benipal, Avneesh B Arputham, Yusuf Khan, Ms. Anuradha Arputham (for Mis Arputham Aruna Co.), Rajeev Sharma, V. Madhukar, Mohit D. Ram, Ms. Monisha Handa, Ms. Anvita Cowshish, Lubna Naaz, Pushpinder Singh, Niraj Kr. Jain, Pankaj Kr. Bohra, Anurag Rana, Mernsagar Samantaray, Debmalya Bane1:jee, Jasmeet Singh, A. S. Aman, Manish Sharma, Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Amit Sharma, Prateek Yadav,Ankit Raj, Milind Kumar, P. Venkat c Reddy, A. Ramesh, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Ms. Shilpi Gupta, Mis Venk:at Palwai I.aw Associates, Nakul Dewan, l'radhuman Gohil, Vikash Singh, Ms. 1~1runa Singh Gobi!, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Himanshu Chaubey, Shivarama Krishnan M. S., Vinayak Pannicker, Ms. Aanchal Basur, Purvesh Malkan, Ajoy K Roy, Ms. Nandita Chauhan, Ms. Gargi Jha, S. D S. Shroff, Anand Raja, Pawan Upadhyay, Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Mrs. Anisha Upadhyay, Kaustuv P. Pathak, Ab.sh Tyagi, Nishant Kumar, Ratik Sharma.Arindam, Param Mishra, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay. Varun K. Chopra, Shishir Deshpande. Amit Yadav, Pulkit Tare •. Akshat Shrivastava, Abhijeet Shrivastava. Ms. Ruchi Sahay, Ms. Akanksha Sisodia, Siddharth .Shrivastava, Jarun Gulia, Anshuman Shrivastava, E Sarabjeet Dutta, Mohit Arora, Ms. Divya Roy, T. Natarajan Durga Prasad, Akarsh Garg, Kaushik Choudhury, Sunil Kumar Jain, Sridhar Potaraju, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Arjun Singh, Ms. Sindoora V. N. L., Ms. Ankita Sharma, Ms. Madhavi Divan, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Ms. Movita, Ms. Misha Rohatgi, Ms. Akhila J., Thangathurai, Diksha Rai, Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, S.N. Terdal, B. Krishna Prasad, M. K. Maroria, Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Sanjeev K Singh, N.A. Usmani, Surajita Pattanaik, D.S. Mabra, Rajesh Kumar, Ms. M. Prasad, Ms. Surekha Raman, Pratap Venugopal, Aman Shukla, Anuj Sanna, Ms. Niharika (for Mis K. J. John & Co.), Krishnayan Sen, Uddyam Mukhe1:jee, 1-limanshu Bhushan, Ankit Jain, Atul Jha, Ms. Divya G Balasundaram, Sandeep Jha, Dhannendra Kumar Sinha, T. K. Majumdar, Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Sankar Ch. Ghosh. Kuna! Mimani, Ms. Vandana Anand, Ritunjay Gupta, Dheeraj Nair. Ravinder Narain, Ajay Aggarwal, Ms. Kanika Gamber, Ms. Mallika Joshi, Kishan Rawat, Ms. Ruchik:a, Rajan Narain, Ms. Deepti Sarin, Nakul Gandhi, Sanjiv Kumar Singh, !-I

JINDAL STAINLESS LfD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 161

Ms. Tahira Karanjawala, Ms. Aakanksha Munjal (for M/s. Karanjawala A & Co.), Ms. Nandini Gore, Trishala Kulkarni, Ms. Neha Khandelwal (for M/s. Karanjawala & Co.), Abhishek Roy, A1:jun Sharma, Rajeev K Pandey, Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, Matrugupta Mishra, Ms. Shikha Ohri, Piyush Singh, Hernant Singh, Nimesh Kr. Jha, Ms. Shannila Upadhyay, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Dr. M. V. K. Mo01thy, Hitendranath B Rath, Ms. T. Anamika, Ajay Kumar, Shivam Ojha, Ms. ·Richa Srivastava, Ms. Krishna Sanna, Av~jit Roy, Ms. Vartika Sahay (for M/s Corporate Law Group), Ranjit B. Raut, Abbay Anand Jena, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, Raghav Shankar, Joseph Aristotle S., Mrs. Priya Aristotle, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Pankaj Pandey, Rajesh Inamdar, Javedur Rahman, Parikshit, Kamal Mohan Gupta, franklin Caesar Thomas, Chand Qureshi, c M. P. Siddiqui, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Anil Grover, Sl).meer Rohatgi, Udayaditya Bane1:jee, Akshay Puranik, Devashish Bharuka, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Ravi Bharuka, Ms. Jaya Bharuka, Vaibhav Niti, Ms. Arpita Bishnoi, Ms. Anu Tyagi, Gautam Sharma, Akshay Puranik, Dr. Monica Gusain, Kedar Nath Tripathy, Raghenth Basant, Abhishek Tripathi, Ms. D Aanchal Tikmani, Senthil Jagadeesan, C. D. Singh, Sagar Suri, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Ms. Sylona Mohapatra, Ms. Saumya Kalra, Ms. Sukanya Basu, Sandeepan Pathak, Udit Arora, Swarnendu Chatterjee, Ms. Ananya Sarkar, M. P. Srivignesh, Lalitendu Mohapatra, Puneet Parihar, Adhi Raj Singh Rajawat, Vivek R. Mohanti, Sitesh Narayan Singh, Shrey E Kapoor, Ms. Ruchi Mohli, Saurabh Raj pal, Amit Shanna, Prateek Yadav, Ankit Raj, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Atul Jha, A. P. Mayee, A. Selvin Raja, An up Gilda, Nikhil Swami, Ms. Divya Swami, Mrs. Prabha Swami, Raghenth Basant, Abhishek Tripathi, Ms. Aanchal Tikmani, Ms. Liz Mathew, Anurag Dubey, Ms. Anu Sawhney, Ms. Meenakshi, S. R. Setia, Sujit Keshri, Ashok Kumar Juneja, Vijendra Kasana, Kamal Mohan Gupta, F Ms. Manju Shaima Jetley, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Wills Mathews, Ginesh P., Ashish Kumar Sinha, Shreepal Singh, Mandeep Kalra, C. Mukund, S.Sukumaran, Anand Sukumar, Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Ms. Meera Mathur, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, K. Luikang Michael, Flix Gangmei, Nalin Kohli, Ankit Roy, Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Avijit Roy, G Shuvodeep Roy, Manoj Goel, Shuvodeep Roy, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Sree Vignesh, Swarnendu Chatte1:jee, K. R. Sasiprabhu, Raghav Shankar, Shubhranshu Padhi, Ashwin Dave, Vishnu Sharma, Ms. Shruti .lain. Somiran Sharma, Biju P. Raman, Raghu Chandra, 1-limanshu Suman, Karan Lahiri, D. K. Singh, Pradeep Shukla, Ms. Koma! H

• 162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] JO S.C.R.

Mundra, A. D. Agrawal, Saurabh Agrawal, Abhijit Sengupta, Ravinder Narain, Ms. Kanika Gomber, Ms. Mallika Joshi, Rajan Narain. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Riturnj Biswas. M.anish Kumar. Shivam Singh, Aditya Raina, Shreyas Jain. Advitya Awasthi, Ms. Varsha Poddar, Chandan Kumar, Gopal Singh, Ms. Ranja1rn Roy Gawai, Ms. Vasudha Sen,Abhay l'ratap Singh, Anshumaan Bahadur. Ms. Divya Roy, Pushkar Taimani, Ms. Chandra Bhushan, Shashank Singh, R. K. Ojha, Ms. Chhaya Kumari, S. K. Divakar, Ms. Priyanka Tyagi,Abhijit Sinha,Anil K. Jha, Gopal Prasad, Srijan Sinha, V. Lakshmikumaran, M. P. Devanath, Ms. L. Charnaya, Abhishek Anand, Adity;i Bhattachary;i, Hemant Bajaj. Anandh K., Aniket Ghosh, Vivek Sharma, Victor Das, Govind Manoharan, Ms. Shruti Iyer, c Joydeep Mazumdar, Gaurav Ghosh. Par\jat Sinha, Sachin Pujari, D. Kumanan, Ahhishek Atrey, Rishabh Sancheti, Raj Singh Rana, Ms. Anti ma Bazaz, Makrand Pratap Singh, D. N. Dubey, Rakesh Kr. Mudgal, Pawan Kunrnr Shukla, Ritin Rai, Prateek Rath, V. K. Monga, K. V. Mohan, Rupesh Kumar, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Pravesh Bahuguna, D Ji tin Singlrnl, Prateek Raoka, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Amatjit Singh, Ms. Srikala Gurukrishna Kumar, Ms. Shikha Sandhu, Prasanna Venkat, Ms. Sneha R. Iyer, Ms. Charulata Chaudhary, Prashanth K. Mukandan, Mohan, K. R. Sasiprabhu, Somiran Shan11a, Biju P. Raman, Raghu Reddy. Sandeep Narain (for Mis. S. Narain & Co.), Mrs. Priya Puri, S. K. Puri, Ranjay Dubey, Ms. Churchi Mandakini, Shubail Farook, Faisal Farook, Jayant Sud. Amit Pathak, Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Bibekananda Mohanti, Mr. Rajesh Jain, Ms. Roohina Dua, C. George Thomas, Ms. Akriti Chaubey, Ms. Kriti Awasthi, Fai·az Maqbool, Ms. Qurratulain, Ms. Tanya Shree, Maninder Singh, Abhimanyu Bhandari, Atul N., Ma yank Pandey, Dr. Ravindra Chingala, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Sanveer Mehlwal, Ms. Geetanjali, K. L. Janjani, Roy Abraham, Ms. Reena Roy, Ms. Seema Jain, Ms. Chandrani Prasad, Himinder Lal, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Jatinderpal Singh, Rajesh Kr. Singh, Ms. Romy Chacko, Pawanshree Agarwal, Manish Panda, Tarun Jain, Asit Das, Vinoo Bhagat, Vijay Kr. Gupta, Abhishek Gupta, Ms. Shweta, P. K. M;inohar, Devashish Bharuka, P. N. Puri, Tanm Johri, Ms. Shiiin Khajuria, Sibo Shankar Mishra, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Virvijay Singh, Ashok Mathur, Ramesh Babu M. R., B. Balaji, S. Ramsubramanian, Muthuvel l'alani, A. Arvind Athithan, Utkarsh Srivastava, R. Gopalakrishnan, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Akanksha Mehra,

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 163

Mrityunjai Singh (for Mis Lawyer's Knit & Co.), Mohan Pandey, Mrs. A B. Sunita Rao, Ms. Sujatha, .layant Kumar Mehta, Narendera M Sharma, Ms. Prachi Johri, Rajesh Prasad Singh, Ashok Kumar Gupta,-II, Ashok Panigrahi. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, V. N. Raghupathy, M. Paikaray, N. Paikray, Rishipal Singh, Ms. Vinakshi Kadan, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Dr. Rajeev Sharma, Anirudh Sanganeria. Chinmay Deshpande, Parikshit B Angadi, Amjid Maqbool, Vinay Garg, Kumud Lata Das, Ms. Padma l'riya, Rishabh Sancheti. Dr. Sanjeev Johri, Dinesh Mehta, Bishwa Bandhu, D. Subaramanian. T. Mahipal, Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A. S. Bhasme, Ms. Manali Singhal, Santosh Sachin, Abhijat P. Medh, Gaurav Srivastava, Rohit Kaul, lJdayan Tandan, Deepak Singh Rawat, Ms. Mamta Rani, Vodafone Essar Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Suman Yadav, Ms. c Aakanksha Munjhal, Debmalya Bane~jee, .lasmeet Singh, A. S. Aman, Manish Sharma, K. K. Mani, Sharad Puri, Ms. Aruna Mathur, V. N. l(oura, Ms. Anma Mathur, Ms. Paramjit Benipal, Avneesh Arputbam, Yusuf Khan, Ms. Anuraclha Arputham, M/s. Arputham Aruna & Co., Arvind Minocha, Shaclan rarasat, Ahmed Said, Gunnam Venkateswara D Rao, Ms. Prerna Mehta, S.K. Sabharwal, Jai Prakash Pandey, Ms. Sadapurna Mukhetjee, Vivek Jain, Ratan Kumar Singh, Vipin Kumar Jai, Anil Shrivastav, Rituraj Biswas, Krishnanancl Pandey, Jayesh Gaurav, Abhijeet Sinha, Shashank Singh, Srijan Sinha, Amrenclra Kr. Chobey, Mel. Waquas, Anand, Ms. Ameyvikarama, Ms. Susluna Suri, P. V. Dinesh, E Radha Shyam Jena, Ms. Ginny J Rautray, Dharmencler Rautray, Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Manish Kumar, Nakul Jain, Ms. Divya Roy, Mrs. Naresh Bakshi, Parijat Sinha, Ms. Priyanka Paricla, Saksham Maheshwari, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Sunil Kumar Jain, Dinesh K. Garg, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Deepak Mishra, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, .layesh Gaurav, Ms. Soojan, Sumeet Lal, Jogy Scaria, Ms. F Manjeet KirpaL Mrs. Raj di pa Behura, Mrs. Y. S. Lakshmi, A. Venayagam Balan, S. K. Bhattacharya, Niraj Bobby Paonam, S. Chandra Shekhar, M/s Mitter & Mitter Co., Pankaj Pandey, Ms. C. K. Sucharita, Shibashish Misra. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Pramit Saxena, Rahul Aggarwal, Mrs. Shally Bhasin, H. D. Thanvi, Ms. Preeti Thanvi, Rishi G Mato Ii ya. Balkishan Ladania, Mukul Kumar, Raj iv Shankar Dvivedi, S. K. Sarkar, Ms. Maclhavi Sharma. Balkrishan Shanna, Abinash Kumar, Mel. Ziaudclin Ahmad. Punit Dutt Tyagi. Pankaj Kumar Singh, D. N. Dubey, Ms. Rinku Mishra, Ms. Parul Shukla, Ms. Varsha Rana, M.

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

/\ Dubey. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Mrs. K Sarada Devi, Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Raj Singh Rana, Makrand Pratap Singh, Ms. Varsha Rana. Rakesh Kr. MudgaL D. N. Dubey, Pa wan Kumar Shukla, Sanjay Bhatt, Dushyant Kumar, Naveen Kumar, Joydeep Mukherjee, Rabin Majumder, Sameer Jain, Siddharth Jain, Harsh Vardhan, Sandeep Bajaj, Ms. Nishtha Sikroria, Anurag Gupta, Sandir Kalia, Nand Ram, Aditya Chopra, Ms. Sayali Qureshi. Gajendra Maheshwari, Ms. Swati Thapa, Ms. Prema I ,al, Dheer Srivastava, Ms. Tripti Dhar, Ms. Shikha Bhardwaj, Ashwarya Sinha, Anurag, Ankur Mittal, Farrukh Rasheed, Ms. Garima Prashad, Vikas Singh Jangra, Bbakti Vardan Singh, Amit Kumar Pathak, Gaurav Singh, Jivesh Mehta, Sanjay Krnnar Das, Mullapudi Rambabu, Ajay Choudhary, c Kush Chaturvedi, A. P. Sinha, Brajesh Kumar; Sudhanshu Palo, Ms. Anuj Bhandari, Rahul Pachauri, Ankit Mishra, Mordhwaj Singh, S. Thananjayan, K. R. Nambiar, M. P. Viond, M. T. George, Rajiv Mehta, R. Sathish, Ms. Baby Krishnan. C. N. Sree Kumar, Aruneshwar Gupta, TV. George. Mis J. S. Wad & Co., Vijay K. Gupta, Mrs. Sunita Sharma, ]) Rohan P. Shah,Alok Yadav, Udit .lain, Somnath Shukla, Avinash Tripathi, 1-larish Pandey. Raj iv Agnihotri, Nisbit Agarwal.Ms. Babita Sant, Yash Agarwal, Ms. Sunaina Kumar, Raj iv Agnihotri, Ramesh Agarwal. Kartik Kurmy, Shrish Kumar Misra, Ralrnl Prasanna Dave, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Sanjay Kapur, Anmol Chandan, Ms. Priyanka Das, Partha Sil, Vijay Pratap Singh, K. S. Rana, Aditya Sharma, Ms. Rekha Sethi, B. K. Satija, Amlan Kumar Ghosh, Bhargava V. Desai, Ms. Akriti Dewan, Anurag Dubey. Mrs. Meenakshi, Ms. Anu Sawlmey, Rajesh Pandey, S. R. Setia, Prashant Kumar, Gaurav Agrawal, M. K. Dua, Devashish Bharuka, Sanjay Jain, Y. Prabhakara Rao, M. K. Michael, A. Raghunath, Vishnu Sba1111a, Ms. Anupama Sharma, Tripurari Ray, K. Rajeev, Deba Prasad F Mukherjee, R. V. Kameshwaran, T.G. Narayanan Nair, V.K. Sidharthan, P. N. Puri. C.K. Sasi, Mrs. S. Janani, Ms. Malini Poduval, Mis T. T. K. Deepak & Co., Vijay Kumar, E. M. S. Anam, S. Sukumaran, Anand Sukumar, Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Ms. Meera Mathur, V.K.Siddharthan, .logy Scaria. Ms. Beena Victor, Senthil Jagadeesan, Govind Manoharan, Ci Ms. Shruti Iyer, Bijoy Kumar Jain, Samir Ali Khan, A. Radhunath, Chiraranjan Addey, Ghanshyam Joshi, Jai Prakash Pandey, Manish K Bislmoi, Narinder Kumar Verma, Venkat Poonia, Sanjay KathiyaL Deepu Kr. Jha, M. P. Vinod, Dileep Pillai, Ajay K. Jain, Atul Shankar, Rauf Rahim. Somiran Sharma, K. V. Mohan, A. V. Rangam, Buddy A. Ranganadhan, D. V. Raghu Vamsy, Prem Prakash, Punit Dutt Tyagi, Y. H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 165

Raja Gopala Rao, Ajay Choudhary, Raj iv S. Roy, Avrojyoti Chatte1jee, A Abh~jit S. Roy, Pranab Kumar Mullick, Aditya Mehrotra, Sukumar, Sebat Kumar Devria, Prem Sunder Jha, Somnath Bane1jee, Satya Mitra Garg, Siddhaiiha Choudhury, Sanjiv Kumar Singh, Sanjeeb Panigrahi, S. Ravi Shankar, Biswajit Das, Nayanika Pattnaik, Ms. Vanshika Chandra, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Ms. K. V. Bharthi Upadhyay, B Ms. Manjula Gupta, Ciccu Mukhopadhaya, Ms. PunamKumari, A.G. Garg, Rakesh Garg, Ms. Shweta Garg, Abhisth Kumar, P. P. Singh, Niraj Sharma, Ms. Krishna Sarma, Avijit Roy, Ms. Vartika Sahay (for Mis Cmvorate Law Group), Anil Shrivastav, Rituraj Biswas, Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Shikhar Garg, Ganesh Bapu TR., Ravi Kant Pal, P. V. Yogeswaran, B. S. Banthia, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ms. SurabhiAggarwal, c Ranjith K., Ms. Shally Bhasin, Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni, Ms. Sushma Shanna, Amit Pawan, Ravindra Bana, Nikhil Majithia, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Rakesh K. Sharma, T.N. Rama Rao, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, T. Veera Reddy, Ms. C. K. Sucharita, G.N. Reddy, P.A. Noor Muhmed, Nitin Bhardwaj, Shishir Pinaki, Rajiv Kumar Sinha, lrshad D Ahmad, Sandip Kalia, Krishna, Nand Ram, C. Balakrislma, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Kaushik Poddar, Adarsh Upadhyay, S. K. Verma, N. Ganpathy, Arijit Mazumdar, Abhinav Muke1:ji, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Mrs. Pratibha Jain, Ms. Nilofar Khan, R. C. Gubrele, Anant K. Vatsya, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, E Ajay Singh, Dr. Sushi! Balwada, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Viswajit Singh, Naresh Kumar, Merusagar Samantaray, Renjith Marar, Vinodh Kanna B., S. J. Amith, Gautam Kumar, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, P. B. Suresh, Vipin Nair, Tishampati Sen, Ms. Nandini Sen, D. P. Mukherjee, Amai:iit Singh Bedi, Umang Gupta, Varun Chandiok, Srisatya Mohanty. Ab hay Kumar, Khalid Akhtar, Bilal Khan, A. R. Madhav Rao, F Rajat Mittal, Pawanshree Agrawal, Amar Gupta, Ritunjay Gupta, Divyam Agarwal, Pankaj Bhagat, Ms. Babita Sant, Ms. Sunaina Kumar, Nitesh Jain, Shubhranshu Padhi, Kush Chaturvedi, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Ni th ya, Sunil Roy, Raj iv Tyagi, Divakar Kumar, Gyanendra Shanna, Rahul Tyagi, Ajay Bansal, Gaurav Yadava, Viswapal Singh, Naveen Shanna, G Mishra Saurabh, Ankit Kumar Lal, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Biswajit Das, Nayanika Pattnaik, Ms. Asha G. Nair, Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, Anil Kumar, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, R. Nedumaran, Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Ayush Sharma, Nupur Shanna, ShaileshK. Kapoor, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties. H

166 SUPREME COUIU REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

The following .Judgments and Order of the Court were delivered:

T. S. THAKUR, C.11 (for himself and A. K. Sikri and A. M. Khanwilkai; .J.J.) I. These appeals bring to fore for our determination vexed questions touching the interpretation of Articles 301 to 307 comprising Pmi XIII of the Constitution which have been the subject B matter or several Constitution Bench decisions of this Court, all but one, decided by majority. The questions assume in a great measure considerable public importance not only because the same deal with the powers of the State legislatures to levy taxes but also because any pronouncement of this Court is bound to impact the federal character of our polity and the Centre-State relationship in legislative and fiscal matters. There is no gainsaying that it is the importance of the questions that lies al the bottom of the present reference to a larger Bench made in the following circumstances.

2. ln exercise of their legislative powers under Entry 52 of List II D of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution several States in the country, at least 14 of whom are parties to these proceedings, have enacted laws that provide for levy of a tax on the "entry of goods into local areas comprising the States". The constitutional validity of these levies was questioned in different High Courts by assesses/dealers aggrieved of the same, inter a!ia, on the ground that the same were violative of the constitutionally recognised right to free trade commerce and intercourse guaranteed under Article 301 of the Constitution of India. The levies were also assailed on the ground that the same were discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Article 304(a) of the Constitution oflndia. Absence of Presidential sanction in terms of Article 304(b) of the Constitution of r India was also set-up as a ground of challenge to the levies imposed by the respective State legislatures. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8700 of2000 filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was one such petition that assailed the constitutional validity of the Haryana Local Development Act, 2000. Relying upon the decisions of this Court inAtiabari Tea Co. G Ltd. v. State of Assam & Ors. (AIR 1961 SC 232); Automobile Transport (Ra)astllan) Ltd. etc. v. State of Ra}asthan & Ors. (AIR 1962 SC 1406); Mis. Bhagatram Rajeev Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. and Ors. (1995 Supp [1] SCC 673 ); and State of Bilwr and Ors. v. Bihar Chamber of Commerce and Ors. (1996) 9

JINDAL STAINLESS ITD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 167

[T. S. THAKUR, CJl]

SCC 136, a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana A dismissed the said petition and connected matters on the ground that the levy was compensatory in character hence outside the purview of Article 301.

3. The correctness of the said order was assailed before this Court in Jindal Stripe Ltd. and Am: v. State of lla1J1a11a and Ors. (2003) B 8 SCC 60. A two-Judge Bench of this Court, however, referred the matter to a larger Bench as it noticed an apparent conflict between the pronouncements of this Court in Atiabari (supra) and Automobile Tramport (supra) cases on the one hand and Bhagatram (supra) and Bihar Clrnmber of Commerce (supra) on the other. The Court after c noticing the development of law on the subject observed:

"25. To sum up: the pre-1995 decisions held that an exaction to reimh11rse/recompense the State the cost of an existing facility made available to the traders or the cost o{ a specific facility planned to he provided to the traders is compensatory tax and that it is implicit in such a levy that it must, more or less, be commensurate with the cost of the service or facility. The decisions emphasized that the imposition of tax must he with the definite pwpose of meeting the expenses on account o{ providing or adding to the trading facilities either immediately or in fitture provided the quantum of tax sought to he generated is based on a reasonable relation ro the actual or projected expenditure on the cost of the service or facility.

26. 111e decisions in Bhagatram and Bihar Chamber of Commerce now sav thar even if the purpose o{ imposition of the tax is not mere~v to confer a special advantage on the traders hut to benefit the public in general including the traders. that levy can still he considered to he compensarmy. According to this view, an indirect or incidental hene/it lo traders hy reason o{ stepping H

108 SUPREME COURT RF.PORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A up the developmental activities in various local areas of' the State ca11 be legitimately brought within the co11cept of' compensatory tax, the nexus het\1'een the tax k11ow11 as compensatOI)' tax and the tradingfacilities not heing necessari(v either direct or specific. B

2 7. Since the concept of compensatorv tax has hee11 judicial!\' evolved as an exception to the provisions of Article 301 and as the parameters of this judicial co11cept are h!urred, partintlar!y by reason of the decisions in Blrngatram and Bi/tar Cltamber of Commerce we are of the view that the interpretation of Article 301 vis-a-vis compensatory tax should be authoritatively laid dmvn ivith certitude by the Constitution Bench under Article 145(3). D

28. !11 the circumstances let all these matters he placed hefime the Hon 'hie the Chief .Justice for appropriate directions. "

4. The matters were. pursuant to the above, placed before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Jindal Stainless Ltd. (2) and A11r. v. State <~f IlmJ•ana and Ors., (2006) 7 SCC 241 which resolved the conflict noticed in the reference order by holding that the working test f propounded by seven Judges in Automobile Transport case (supra) was incompatible with the test of 'some connection' enunciated by the three Judge Bench in Bhagatram'.~ case (supra). The Court held that the test of 'some connection' as propounded in Bhagatram 's case (supra) had no application to the concept of compensatory tax. The Court, accordingly, ovenuled the decisions rendered in Bhagatram and G Bihar Chamber of Commerce cases and held that the doctrine of' direct and immediate effect' of the impugned law on trade and commerce under Article 301 as propounded in Atiabari (supra) and the working test enunciated in Automohile Transport (supra) cases for deciding whether a tax is compensatory or not will continue to apply. The Cou1t H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 169

[T. S. THAKUR, CJI] observed: A

"53. We reiterate that the doctrine of "direct and immediate effect·· of the impugned law on trade and commerce under Article 301 as propounded in Atiabari B Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam and the working test e111111ciated in Automohile 7/·ansport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan for deciding whether a tax is cmnpe11sat01y or not vide para 19 of the Report (AIR), H·ill continue to apply and the test of "some connection" indicated in para 8 (of SCC) of the judgment in c Bhagatram Rajeevkumar v. CST and followed in State of Bihar v. Bihar Chamber of Commerce is, in our opinion, not good law. Accordingly, the constitutional validity of various local enactments which are the s11hject-matter.1· of pending appeals, special leave petition.1· and writ petitions will now he listed for being disposed of in the light of this judgment. "

5. The matters were. in terms of the above direction, listed before a two-Judge bench for hearing of the appeals in the light of the above pronouncement of the Constitution Bench. The two-Judge Bench, however, noticed that although the basic issue in the appeals revolved around the concept of compensatory tax, the High Courts had not examined the same as they had considered themselves bound by the view taken in Bhagatram and Bihar Chamber of Commerce cases F (supra). The Court further found that in the absence of relevant data before the High Courts, the issue whether the levies were compensatory could not have been considered and accordingly referred the matter back to the High Courts to decide the said aspect. The appeals were, in the meantime, adjourned to await the finding from the High Courts on the question whether the levies were indeed compensatory in nature G having regard to the decisions of this Court inAtiabari and Automobile Ji'amport cases (supra).

6. The matters were accordingly taken up by the High Courts, after the remand, who came to the conclusion that the impugned levies H

170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A were neither compensatory in character nor was the procedure stipulated by Article 304(b) and the proviso to the same followed. The levies were on that basis held to be in violation of Article 301 being an impediment to free trade, commerce and intercourse and accordingly struck down. The High Courts of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Kerala and T1mil Nadu struck down the levies imposed by their respective States B also on the ground that they were discriminatory in nature hence violative of Article 304(a) of the Constitution.

7. All these judgments and orders of the High Courts. passed after the remand, then, came to be challenged by the States concerned C in the appeals filed against the same. These appeals initially came-up before a two-Judge Bench of this Court comprising .Justice Arijit Pasaya! and Justice S.H. Kapadia. Their Lordships referred the same to a Constitution Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on as many as ten questions formulated in the reference order (Jaipralws!t Associates Limited v. State of Mad/Jya Prades/J and Ors. (2009) 7 SCC 339). I) The Court noticed the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessees that entry taxes were, in essence and ill the classical sense, in the nature of 'a fee' and not 'a tax'. It also noted the contention that all the cases on which the parties had placed reliance related to entry tax in the context of tax on vehicles in contradiction to taxes on entry of goods. The Court was of the view that while the Constitution Bench in Jindal Stainless Ltd. (2) (supra) had dealt with some aspects of the matter, certain other important constitutional issues remained to be examined especially because a conceptually and contextually different approach may be required vis-rl-vi.1· "transport cases" on the one hand and cases of·'entry tax on goods" on the other. The questions formulated by the Court for F determination by the Constitution Bench were in the following words:

"(l) Whether the State enactments relating to levy of entrv tax have to he tested with reference to hoth clauses (a) and (h) of Article 304 of the Constitution for determining their validity and whether clause (a) of G Article 304 is conjunctive with or separate fi'om clause (h) of Article 304?

(2) Whether imposition of entry tax levied in terms of Entry 52 Ust II of the Schedule VJJ is violative of Article H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 171

IT. S. THAKUR, CJl]

301 of the Constitution? If the answer is in the A affirmative whether such levy can he protected if entry tax is cmnpensatorr in character and if the ansiver to the af(Jresaid question is in the a{firmlitive what are the yardvtick.I· to he applied to determine the compensatmy character of the rntr)' tax? B

(3) /!Vhether En Irr 52 Ust II, Schedule VII of the Co11s1it11tion like 01her taxing entries in the Schedule, men· , J>mvides a taxing field for exercising the po1ver to /el'.1' a11d whether collection of entry tax which ordinarilv would he credited to the Consolidated Fund C of the State being a revenue received by the Governme/11 of the State and 1vould have to he appropriated in accordance ivith law and for the purposes and i11 the manner provided in the Constitution as per Article 266 and there is nothing express or explicit in Entry 52 List D fl, Schedule VII 1\'hich would compel the State to spend the tax collected within the local area in which it was collected?

(1) Will the principles of quid pro quo relevant to a fee applv in the matter of' taxes imposed under Part XIII? E

(5) Whether the entry tax may he levied at all where the goods meant .for heing sold, used or consumed come to rest (standvtill) afier the movement of the goods ceases in the ''local area"? F (6) Whether the entry tax can he termed a tax on the movement of goods when there is no har to the entry of good1· at the State horder or when it passes through a local area within which they are not sold, used or C0/1Sl/11Jed? G (7) Whether inte17Jretation o/Articles 3()1 to 304 in the co/1/ext ol tax on vehicles (commonly known as "transport") cases in Atiahari case and utomohile 11-ansport case applv to e1111y tax cases and !f so, to whal extenr'! H

172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] l 0 S.C.R.

A (8) Whether the 11011-discriminatorv indirect State tax which is capahle of' heing passed on and has heen passed 011 hy traders to the consumers infi·inges Article 301 of' the Constitution?

(<J) Whe!her a tax on good1· within the State vvhich directlv impedes the trade and thus violates Article 301 of the Constitution can he saved hy ref'erence to Article 304 of the Constitution alone or can he saved hy any other article?

(10) Whether a fe1~y under E1111y 52 List JI, even if held c to he in nature of' a compensatory levy, must, on the principle of equivalence demonstrate that the value of the quantifiahfe henefit is represented hy the costs incurred in procuring the facifitylservices (v..-!1ich costs in tum become the hasis of rei111hursement/reco111pe11se D for the provider of the services/facilities) to he provided in the "local area .. concerned and whether the entire State or a part thereof' can he comprehended as local area fiir the pwpose of' entn· tax?"

8. The matter was accordingly placed before a five-Judge Bench of this Court (.Jindal Stainless Limited and Am: v. State of llaryana and Ors. (2010) 4 SCC 595) who briefly refe1Ted to the decisions in Atiabari, Automobile Transport cases (supra) and Kesltm• Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (AIR 1965 SC 1636) and a few others and refe1Ted the matters to a larger Bench for reconsideration of the judgment of this Court in Atiabari and Automobile Tramport (supra). The Court noted that the correctness of the view taken in the said two cases had been doubted as early as in the year 1975 in G.K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1975) 1 SCC 375. The reference order briefly set out some of the questions that required consideration by a larger Bench. The Court said:

"l J. Some of' these aspects which need consideration hr a farger Bench of' this Cowt may he hriefly 11

JINDAL STAINLESS Ll'D. v. STATE Of HARYANA 173

[T. S. THAKUR, CJl] e111111ierared. Interplay/interrelationship hetvveen Article A 301(a) 011d ,1rticle 304(/J). The significa11ce of the word "and" he/ween Articles 304(a) a11d 304(h). The significance of the non ohstante clause in Article 304. The halancing o{.fi'eedom of trade and commerce in llrticle 301 vis-a-vi.1· the Srates' authority to levy taxes B under Articles 215 and 246 of the Constitution read with the appropriate legislative entries in the Seve11th Schedule. particularly in the context of movement of trade and cmnmerce.

12. Whether Article 301(a) and Article 304(/J) deal with c differe111 suhjccts? Whether the impugned taxatio11 law to he valid under Article 301 (a) must also fu(fil the conditions mentio11ed in Article 304(/J), including Presidential assent? Whether the ivord "restrictions" in Article 302 and in Article 304(/J) includes tax laws? D Whether validity al a /av.; impugned as violative of Article 301 should he judged only in the light of the test of non-discrimination? Does Article 303 circumscribe Article 301? Whether "internal good.1·" H'mild come under Article 304(/J) and "external goods·" under Article 304(a) '! Whether "per se test" propounded E in Atiahari case should or should not he rejected? Wherher tax simpliciter constitutes a restriction under Part Xlll of the Constitutibn? Whether the word "restriction" in Article 304(h) includes tax lmvs? ls taxation justiciahle? Whether the "working test" laid dmrn in tiahari makes a lax law per se violative of' Article 30 l '! Jrzterrelationship hetween Article 19(1)(.g) and Article 301 of the Constitution? These are some of the questions v.11ich warrant reconsideration of the judgments in Atiahari Tea Co. Ltd. and Automobile hansport (Rajasthan) Ltd by a larger Bench of this G Court. "

9. At the hearing before us learned counsel for the parties agreed after a day-long exploratory exercise that the questions that fall for

174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I0 S.C.R.

A determination by this Cou1t could be re-framed as under:

I. Can the levy of a non-discriminatory tax per se constitute infraction of Article 301 of the Constitution of India?

2. If answer to question No. I is in the affirmative, can a tax which is compensatory in nature also fall foul of Article 301 of the Constitution of India?

3. What are the tests for determining whether the tax or levy is compensatory in nature?

C 4. Is the Entry Tiu levied by the States in the present batch of cases violative of Article 301 of the Constitution and in particular have the impugned State enactments relating to entry tax to be tested with reference to both Articles 304(a) and 304(b) of the Constitution for determining their validity'! o I 0. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerablt: length on the above questions which we shall now take up for discussion ad-seriatim.

Re: Question No. 1 E l I. Whether no11-discri111inato1y fiscal measures also impede free trade, commerce and intercourse and thereby fall foul of Article 30 I of the Constitution can be answered only if one keeps in view the F Constitutional scheme underlying separation of powers in a federal system of governance like the one chosen by us. The answer would also depend upon the way we look at. understand and interpret the provisions of the Constitution and in particular the provisions of Parts XI, XII and Xlll thereof. Interpretation of these and indeed every other provision must have due regard to what are recognised as the basic features of G the Constitution. In doing so, the approach of the Courts can neither be rigid nor wooden or pedantic. Being a Iiving and dynamic document, the Constitution ought to receive an equally dynamic and pragmatic interpretation that harmonizes and balances competing aims and objectives and promotes attainment of national goals and objectives. It must, as H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. Sl~.\TE OF HARYANA 175 [T. S. THAKUR. CJ!] observed by this Court. in Ki/1010 Hollo/um I'. Zttcl1il/hu (1992) Supp A 2 SCC 651 be read as a logical whole. The Constitutional provisions cannot be read in isolation. nor can they be interpreted in a manner that renders another provision redundant declared this Court in T.M.A. Pai Fo1111d11tion and others 1•. State of Kamatakll (2002) 8 SCC 481. If words used in the provision are imprecise, protean or evocative or can B reasonably bear meaning more than one. it would be legitimate for the Court to go beyond the literal confines of the provision and to call in aid other well recognised rules of construction such as legislative history, the basic scheme and framework of the statute as a whole, the object sought to be achieved and the consequence flowing from the adoption of one in preference to the other possible interpretation observed this c Court in Chief Justice of Audhm Pradesh anti others. v. L. V. A. Dixit11l11 lint! others (1979) 2 SCC 34. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Ke.mw111<111da Blwrati v. State ofKemla (1973) 4 SCC 225 where this Court quoted with approval Lord Greene:~ observations in the following words: D

'"56 . ... ... It is not riah/ to construe words in vacuum and then insert the meaning info an arlicle. Lord Green observed i11 Bidie v. General Accident. Fire and Life Assurance Corporation [1948] 2 All E.R. 995: E

The first thing one hos to do. I venture to think. in construing words in a section <~f w1 Act 1if Parliament is not to take those words in vacuo. so to speak. and attribute to them what is sometimes called their natural or ordinary meaning. Few words in the E11glish F language have a natural or ordinary 111ea11i11g in the sense that they must be so read that their 111eani11g is entirely independenl of their context. The method 14" construing statutes that I prefer is not to take particular words and attribute to them a surf of prima facie G meaning which you may have to di.1place or modify. ft is to read the statute as a whole and ask 011eself the question: '!11 this state, in this context, relating to this subject-matte1; what is the true meaning of that word.

17(, SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

/\ 5 7. 1 respect/idly adopt the reasoning of Lord Green in co11strui11g the expressio11 "the amendment of the Constitution .... xxxxxxxx

61. 1 may also refer to the ohservatio11 of Gwve1; CJ., R a11d Lord Wright: "A grant of the power in general terms, standing hy itself, would no douht he construed in the vvider sense; hut it mav he qualified by other express provisions in the same e11actment, hy the implications c ol the context, and even hy considerations arising out of H1wt appears to he the general scheme of the Act." (Per GH·1•e1: CJ - The Central Provinces and Berar Act, 1939, FCR 18 at 12 MR).

D "The question. then, is one olconstruction and in the ultimate resort must he determined upon the actual words used, read not 111 vacua but as occurring in a single complex instrument, in which one part may throw light on anotha The Constitution has heen described as the federal compact, a11d the Construction 11111.1·t hold E a balance hetween all its parts. " (Per Lord Wright - James v. Co111111011wea!th olAustralia, 1936 AC 578 at 613.)"

F 12. It is trite that a nanow interpretation that may have the potential or tendency to subvert the delicate balance which the framers of the Constitution had in mind while distributing legislative businesses including the sovereign power to levy taxes must be avoided and a construction that is most benefici.al for a harmonious relationship between different limbs of the State including that between the Centre and the States or G States inter se adopted. This may. at times, involve ironing out of rough edges which exercise a Constitutional Court must necessarily undertake to avoid confusion and resultant negation of the Constitutional objectives.

13. Having said so. we must sail smooth on certain fundamentals

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 177

[T. S. THAKUR, CJ!] before we address the question whether levy of taxes per se operate as an impediment or restriction on the right to free trade, commerce and intercourse. That is because a true and correct answer to Question No. I can be found only if we constantly keep those fundamentals in mind while attempting to resolve what has been found to be somewhat difficult to resolve. For instance, whether levy of a tax is an attribute of sovereignty and if so whether Article 246 of the Constitution recognises the sovereign power of the State to make laws including the power to levy taxes on subjects enumerated in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution is an important dimension that must be addressed as a part of the interpretative exercise. So also, we must examine whether pO\verto tax if held to be subservient to Article 30 I, shall h~ve the effect c of denuding the States of their sovereignty in the matter of levy of taxes and in the process affect the federal structure of the polity envisaged by the Constitution. If levy of taxes is always presumed to be reasonable and in public interest, whether such levies could be said to be within the contemplation of Article 304(b) when it provided for imposition of D "reasonable restrictions in public interest'' is yet another aspect that must be explored especially when the reasonableness of any restriction within the comprehension of Article 304(b) is not free from judicial scrutiny by Courts. These are some of the broad and fundamental issues that need to be examined before we attempt to answer the question whether levy of taxes per se acts as an impediment for free trade, commerce and intercourse. We may now briefly refer to these fundamentals before adverting to the provisions of Part Xlll that fall for our interpretation . . Power to Tax : an Attribute of sovereignty

14. Power to levy taxes has been universally acknowledged as an essential attribute of sovereignty. Cuvley in his Book on Taxation - Volume-I (4'" Edn.) in Chapter-2 recognises the power of taxation to be inherent in a sovereign State. The power, says the author. is inherent in the people and is meant to recover a contribution of money or other property in accordance with some reasonable rule or apportionment for the purpose of defraying pub! ic expenses. The following passage from the book is apposite: "57. Power to tax as an inherent attribute of.wJJ'ereignty. The power (~l taxation is an essential and inherent H

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I 0 S.C.R.

A attribute of' sovereignty, belonging as a murter of' right to every independent government. It is possl'ssed by the government without being expressly conferred by the people. The power is inherent in the people because the sustenance of' the government relJUires cun1ril111tio11s Ji-inn them. In fac:t the power of taxation may be defined B as "'the puwer inherent in the sovereign state to rec:uver a contribution r~f money or other property, iii accordanc:e with some reasonable rule or apportionment. Ji"om the property or oc:c:upations within its jurisdiction for the purpose of defi·aying the public c expenses. " Constitutional provisions rel11ting lo 1he power of taxation do not operate 11s grants <~f the puwer of taxation tu the government but instead merely constitute limitations upo11 a power whic:h would otherwise be practically without limit. This i11here11t D power to tax extends to everything over which the sovereign power extends, but not to anything beyond its sovereign power. Even the federal gover111ne111 :1· power of taxation does not inc:lude things beyond its sovereign pmFe1: But where exclusive j11risdictio11 over land is granted to another stale or co1111t1J', the land E remains suNect to the taxing power <~/the state within whose boundaries it is located. "

15. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Raia F Jllga11nlltfl Bllksh Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. (AIR 1962 SC 1563) where this Court observed:

The power of taxation is. no doubt. the sovereign ri<,£ht of the State: as was observed bv Chief' .Justice G ~Marshall in lvf'Culloc:h v. Marv/and U Law Edn. 5 79 p.6071 : "The power of taxing the people and their properrv is essential tu the verv existenc:e o{Govern111e11t, and mav be legitimatelv exercised 011 the obiects to which it 'is upplicahle to the utmost extent to which the H

JINDAL STAfNLESS LTD. v. s·1~<\TE OF HARYANA 179 [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!]

Government mav choose to carrr it." In that sense. it is not the function of the court tu eni-1uire whether the power of taxation has been reasonably exercised either in respecr of the amount taxed or in re.1pecl of the property which is made the object of the tax. Article 265 of the Constitution provides that no tax shall be levied or collected, except by authority of law: and so. for deciding whether a tax has been validly levied or not. it would be necessmy first to enquire whether the legislature which passes the Act H'llS competent tu pass it or 1101. " c (E111p/1t1sis supplied)

17. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Udit1p11r, Rajastlian v. MCtlowell and Co. Ltd. (2009) 10 SCC 755 where this Court reiter.1ted the legal position in the following words: H

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I 0 S.C.R.

A "2 I. "Tax". "dutv ··. ''cess" ur "fee" cu11stiluting a class denules tu l'ariuus kinds u{ impusts bv State in its sovereign power of taxation lo raise r11ve1111e (or the Stale. Within the expressiu11 uf each specie each expression denotes different kind of impost depending B on the purpose for which they are levied. This power can be exercised in w1y uf its 111a11ifestatio11 only under any law authori.1ing levy and collection of lax as e11l'isaged under Article 265 which uses only the expression thal no "tax" shall be levied and collec!ed excepl authorised by law. It in ifs elementary meaning c conveys that to support a tax legisla!ive action is essential, it cannot be levied and collecled in the ahse11ce r!f any legislative sanction by exercise uf executive power rif Stale under Article 73 hy the U11io11 or Article I 62 by the State.

D 22. Under Article 366(28) "Taxation" has been defined lo include the imposition of any lox or impost whether general or local or special and tax shall be construed accordingly. "Impost" meuns compulsory levy. The wqJl- known a11d well-settled characteristic of "tax" in its E wider sense includes oil imposts. Imposts i11 the context have fi1llowing characteristics:

(i) The pol1'er to tax is an incident of sovereig111v. F (ii) "Law" ill the context <~f Article 265 mew1s an Act c~f legislature and cannot comprise an executive ordl!I' or rule without express statutm:v authority. (iii) The term "tax" 1111der Article 265 read with Article 366(28) includes imposts of everr kind viz. tax, duty, G cess or fees. (iv) As an i11cide11t ofsovereigntv and in the nature of compulsorv exaction. a liabilitv fin11llled 011 principle of contract cannot be a "tax" in its t<!Chnical sense us w1 impost. general, local or special. ..

1-1 (Emphasis Supp/ietl)

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. S'fATE OF HARYANA 181

[T. S. THAKUR, CJI]

Power o{ Taxation 1111der tile Co11.stitutio11: A

18. We shall presently turn to the Constitutional limitations on the sovereign power to tax but before we do so we need to point out that while the power to levy taxes is an attribute of sovereignty, exercise of that power is controlled by the Constitution. This is evident from the provisions of Article 265 which forbids levy or recovery of any tax except B by the authority of law. It reads:

"265. Taxes not to he imposed sm•e by a11tl10ri(v of law - No fax shall be lei!ied or co/leered except by auihorify of law." c

The authority of law referred to above must be traceable to a provision in the Constitution especially where the legislative powers are shared by the Centre and the States as is the case with our Constitution D which provides for what has been described as quasi federal system of governance. The source of power to enact laws is contained in Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution which read: E

"245. Extent of laws made by Parli11111e11t and by the Legislatures of State~· - (I} Subject fo the provisio11s of this Constitution. Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and the F Legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State.

(2) No law made by Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid 011 the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation. G

246. Subject-matter of law.~· made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States - (1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3). Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect lo any of the mal/ers H

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 10 S.C.R.

A enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the "Union List").

(2) Notwithsta11di11g anything in clause (3), Parliament and , .whject to clause (1), the J"egislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in Ust Ill in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constit11tio11 referred to as the "Concurrent List").

(3) Suhject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such c State or any part thereof ·with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List 11 in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the 'State J,ist ').

(4)Parliame11t has power to make laws with respect to D a11y matter for any part of the territory of India not i11cluded {in a State] notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List. " l 9. Interpreting Articles 245 and 246, a three-Judge Bench of this F. Court in Mis. lloechst Pliarmace11tical.1· Ltd anti Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1983) 4 SCC 45, held on a review of the available decisions that the Constitution effects a complete separation of taxing powers of the Union and the States under Article 246 and that there is no overlapping anywhere in the exercise of that power. The sources of taxation are F clearly delineated, observed the Court. The Court also held that there is a distinction between general subjects of legislation and taxation for the former are dealt within one group while the later is dealt with in a separate group. The result is that the power to tax cannot be deduced from a general legislative entry. That view was approved by a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries G Ud. (2004) 10 SCC 201. The propositions stated in the two decisions must therefore be treated to be fairly well settled. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in State of Kera/a anti ors. v. Mar Appmem Kuri Co. Ltd. and Anr. (2012) 7 SCC 106 where this Court explained the sweep and purport of Articles 245 and 246: H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 183

[T. S. THAKUR, CJ!]

"35. Article 2./5 deals with ex/en/ of' laws made by A Par/iamelll and by the legislatures of States. The verb "made", in pas/ tense, finds place ill the Head Note lo Arlicle 2./5. The verb "make", i11 the present tense, exists in Article 2-15(1) whereas the verb "made", in the past tense. finds place in Article 2./5(2}. While the legislative 8 power is derived fru111 Article 2-15. !he entries ill the Seventh Schedule of the Collstitwion 011/v demarcate !he legislative fields o( the respective /egislalures and do llOI confer legislative power as such. While Parliament has power lo make laws for the whole or any parf of !he territory of India. the legislature of a c Stale cw1 make laws only fiJr the Stale or par/ the1w!f Thus, Article 2-15 inter aliu indicates the ex/e11/ of laws made by Par!iame11/ and by the Stale Legislatures.

36. Article 246 deals with the subject-mu/fer of laws made by Parliament and by the legislatures (!f States. The verb "made" once again finds place in the Head Note to Article 2-16. This article deals with distribution o(/egislative powers as betweell the Union and the State Legislatures. with reference lo the different Lists in the Seventh Schedule. Jn iihorl, Parliame11l has full and exclusive powers lo legislate with re.1pec/ lo mailers in Lisi I and has also power tu legislate with respect lo mailers in Lisi Ill, whereas the Stale Legislatures, on the other hand, have exclusive power lo legislate with respect to matters in Lisi fl, minus mattersfi11/i11g in Lisi F I and List 111 and have concurrenl power with respect lo matlers in Lisi 111. (.'lee Subrahmanyan Chell iar v. Jvluttuswami Goundan)

37. Article 246. thus, provides for dislribulio11, as between Union and the Stales. o( the legislative powers G which are conferred bv Article 2-15. Article 2-15 begins with the expression ''subject to the provisions of this Constitution". Therefore, Article 2-16 must be read as "subject to other provisions of the Conslitulion ". H

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I 0 S.C.R.

A 38. For the purposes (}f this decision, the point which needs to be emphasised is that Article 245 deals with co11(erment o( legislative powers whereas Article 246 provides fin· distribution of the lc<.;islative por1'as. Article 245 deals with extent o( laws whereas Article 246 deals with distribution of/egi.,/ative puwers. 111 these B articles. the Constitutio11 Framers have used the word ··make" and 110! "comme11ce111e111" which has a specific legal co111101ation. [See Section 3(13) of the General Clauses Act. 1897.j" c (Emphasis supplied)

Limitatio11s 011 the Exercise o(Power

20. Exercise of sovereign power is. however. subject to D Constitutional limitations especially in a federal system like ours where the States also to the extent permissible exercise the power to make laws including laws that levy taxes. duties and fees. That the power to levy taxes is subject to constitutional limitations is no longer res-integra. A Constitution Bench of this Court has in Sy11tltetics and Chemical.~· Ltd. and Ors. 11. St{l/e of U.P. {Int/ Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 109 recognised E that in India the Centre and the States both enjoy the exercise of sovereign power, to the extent the Constitution confers upon them that power. This Court declared:

f ·· 56 ... We would not like, howeve1'. to embark upon any theory (4 police power because the 111dia11 Constitution does not rec"gnise police power as such. But we must recognise the exercise of Sovereign j)O"Wer which gives the State sufficient authority to enact any law subject to the limitations of the Constitution to G discharge its fimctions. Hence. the Indian Constitution as a sovereign State has power to legislate on all branches except to the limitation as to the division of powers between the Centre and the Stales and also subject to the fi111da111e11ta! rights guaranteed under the H

JlNDAL STAINLESS LID. v. STATE OF HARYANA 185

[T. S. THAKUR, CJI]

Constitution. The Indian States. hetween the Centre and A the States, has sovereign powe1: The so1'ereign pmver is plcnar)' and inherent in every sovereign State to do a11 things H'hich promote the health, peace, morals, education and good order of' the people. Sovereignty is difficult to define. This power of' sovereignty is. B hm1·c1'er. suhiect to constitutional limitations. "This p011·c1: according to some constitutional authorities. is to the puhlic iv/wt 11ect'ssi1y is to the individual. Right 10 la.\' or lev1• impost must he in accordance with the prm·ision> of' the Constitution ... c

21. What then are the Constitutional limitations on the power of the State legislatures to levy taxes or for that matter enact legislations in the field reserved for them under the relevant entries of List ll and Ill of the Seventh Schedule. The first and the foremost of these limitations appears in Article 13 of the Constitution oflndia which declares that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution are void to the extent they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part Ill dealing with the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens. It forbids the States from making any law which takes away or abridges, any provision of Part Ill. Any law made in contravention oflhc said rights shall to the extent of contravention be void. There is no gain saying that the power to enact laws has been conferred upon the Parliament subject to the above Constitutional Iimitation. So also in terms of A1ticle 248, the residuary power to impose a tax not otherwise mentioned in the Concurrent List or the State List F has been vested in the Parliament to the exclusion of the State legislatures, and the States' power to levy taxes limited to what is specifically reserved in their favour and no more.

22. Article 249 similarly empowers the Parliament to legislate with respect to a matter in the State List for national interest provided the G Council of States has declared by a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting that it is necessary or expedient in national interest to do so. The power is available till such time any resolution remains in force in terms of Article 249 (2) and the proviso thereunder. H

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A 23. Article 250 is yet another provision which empowers the Parliament to legislate with respect to any matter in the State List when there is a proclamation of emergency. In the event of an inconsistency between laws made by Parliament under A11icles 249 and 250, and laws made by legislature of the States, the law made by Parliament shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, prevail over the law made by the State in B terms of Article 251.

24. The power of Parliament to legislate for two or more States by consent, iii regard to matters not otherwise within the power of the Parliament is regulated by Article 252, while Article 253 starting with a c 11011-ohstante clause empowers Parliament to make any law for the whole country or any pa11 of the ten-itory oflndia for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body.

D 25. Article 285 exempts the property of the Union from all taxes imposed by the States save in so far as the Parliament may by law provide. Article 286 places yet another Constitutional limitation on the State's power to collect any levy that imposes or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of goods where such sale or purchase takes place outside tbe State or in the course of import of the goods into or export of the goods outside the teJTitory of India. It also makes any law of a State imposing tax on sale or purchase of goods of special importance in inter State trade or commerce or a tax on the sale or purchase of goods being a tax of the nature referred to in the relevant sub-clauses of clause 29(A) of Article 366 subject to such restrictions F and conditions as to the system of levy, rates and other incidents of tax as the Parliament may by law specify.

26. Article 287 places a Constitutional limitation on the State's legislative power to enact laws in so far as imposition of tax on consumption or sale of electricity consumed by the Government of India G or sold to the Government of India for consumption by the Government or for consumption of the construction, maintenance or operation of any railway by the Government of India or a rail company etc. Similarly, Article 288 contains a Constitutional limitation on the power of the State in so far as imposition of a tax in respect of any water or electricity stored. generated, consumed, distributed or sold by any authority H

.JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 187 IT. S. THAKUR. CJJ I established by any existing law or any law made by the Parliament is A conccrnccl.

27. It would thus appear that even when Article 246(2) and (3) confers exclusive power on the State legislatures to make laws with respect to matters in the Seventh Schedule such legislative power is exercisable subject to constitutional limitations refened to above. What B is significant is tlrnt the power of the State legislatures to levy taxes is also subject to the limitations of Article 304(a) of the Constitution appearing in Part Xlll thereof. which part regulates trade, commerce and intercourse within the tenitory oflndia and comprises Articles 301 to 307. The provisions of these Articles have been the subject matter of c a series of decisions of this Court including several Constitution Bench decisions to some of which we shall presently refer. The language employed in the provisions and the 11011-ohstante clauses with which lhe same start have all the same given rise to several contentious issues for determination by this Court over the past five decades or so. The fact that the present batch of cases had to be refened to a Nine-Judge D Bench to once again examine the very same issues as have been debated and determined in the previous judgments of this Court only shows that the task of interpreting the provisions is by no means easy and has in fact become more and more clifJicu lt on account of the pronouncements of this Court taking different views not many of which have been urnmimous. The marked difference in the approach adopted by learned counsel for the parties in these appeals is also a measure of the complexities of issues that fall for determination. This is specially so because the prevailing legal position in ter111s of the judgment of this Court in Atiabari and A11to111obile cases (supra) holding that fiscal measures that are compensatory fall beyond the mischief of Article 301 has been questioned by both sides. Mr~ Harish Salve who led the forensic exercise followed by Mis.Arvind Datar, Laxmi Kumaran, Ravindra Shrivastava, N. Venkataraman and others vehemently argued that the "Compensatory Tax Theory" propounded by the Seven Judges Bench of this Court in Automobile case (supra) had no legal basis or constitutional sanction and was neither acceptable nor workable. That is particularly so because the State legislatures had taken umbrage under the "Compensatory Tax Theory" and declared the fiscal levies imposed hy them to be compensatory in character and claimed the same to be outside the mischief of Article 30 I and consequently immune from any H

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A challenge on the ground that these taxes and levies were unreasonable restrictions on the right to free trade and commerce. The States who have enacted the laws providing for levy of taxes on the entry of goods into a local area within the meaning of Entry 52 of List ll have. on the other hand similarly contended that the Compensatory Tax Theory is bereft of any legal basis and that the decision in Atialmri anc\Automobile B cases (supra) need to be revisited to restore and protect the sovereign power oflegislation of the States and the Federal character of our polity. Suffice it to say that except a feeble attempt made by some Counsel. there has been a general consensus that the compensatory tax theory deserves to be rejected and the issues examined afresh on a trut: and c correct interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions. We are mentioning all this only to show that even after fifty years and several illuminating pronouncements of this Court. the cleavage in the judicial opinion as to the true and correct legal position on the subject continues to loom large and haunt lawyers and litigants and, if we may say so, D even Judges alike. The present reference to a larger Bench is in that backdrop expected to give a quietus to this raging legal controversy of considerable complexity. though given the perseverance of the litigants and the ingenuity of the bar a quietus is only a pious hope which has and may even in future elude us.

E Constitutional Limitations must be Express:

28. The power to levy taxes. being a sovereign power controlled only by the Constitution. any limitation on that power must be express. That proposition is well settled by the decisions of this Court in Maharaj Umeg Singh v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 540 and Firm F Bansidhar Premsuklzdas v. State of Rajastlum AIR 1967 SC 40. In Umeg Singh 's case (.rnpra) this Court stated the legal position in the following words:

"12 ....... The legislative competence of the State G Legislature cun only be circumscribed by express prohibition contained in the Constitution itself and unless and until there is imy provision in the Constitution expressly prohibiting legislation 011 the su/1ject either absolutely or conditionally, there is 110 fetter or limitation H

JINDAL STAINLESS !TD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 189 ITS. THAKUR, C.Jlj

011 the ple11arv p01rers H'hich the State Legislature A enjoys to legislate on the topics e11umerated in the Lists JI & Ill of the Se1n11h Sched11/, w the Constitution .

.YX.Y.\ XXXX XXXX

13. The feller or /imitatio11 upon the legislatil"l' power B of the Stale Legislat11re which hadplenwy powers of legisla1io11 withi11 the amhil of the legislative heads .1pecified in the Lists 11 & lll of the Seve11th Schedule to the Constitutio11 could 011ly he imposed hy the Constilulion itself and not hy any obligation which had c heen 1111dertake11 hv either the Domi11io11 Government or the Province of /30111hay or eve11 !he State of Bmnhay. Under Article 146 the State Legislature was i11vested 1rith the power to legislate on the topics e11u111erated i11 Us ts 1I & JJJ o{the Seventh Schedule to the Co11slitution a11d !his po1Ner was hy virtue of article 245( 1) subject lo the provisio11s of the Cons!ilutirm.

The Constitution itself/aid down thefelters or li1nitatio11s 011 !his powe1; e.g .. in /lrticle 303 or article 286(1). But unless and until the Court came to the conclusion !hat the Constitution itself had expressly prohihi!ed legislation on the suhject either ahsolutely or conditionallv the power of the State Legislature to enact legislation within its legislative competence 1vas plenary. Once the lopic of legislation was comprised irithi11 any of the entries in !he Lists lJ & 111 of the Seventh Schedule f to the Co11slit11tio11 the fetter or limitation on such legislative power had to he found within the Constitution itself' and if there 1-vas no such fetter or limitation to he found there the Stale Legislature had fi;ll competence to enact the impug11ed Act no matter ivhether such G enactment was contrarv to the guarantee given. or the ohligation undertaken hy the Dominion Government or the ProFince of Bomlwr or even the State of Bombay.

190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] l 0 S.C.R.

A 29. Again in Bansidlzar'.\· case (supra) this Court reiterated the legal position in the following words:

"8 ... It is well-established that Parliament ur the State Legislatures are comperent lo enact u law altering the terms and conditions ofa previous contract or ofa f{:l'lllll under which the liabilitv of the Govern111e11/ of India or of the State Governments arises. The legislutive competence of Parliament or of the State Legislatures can only be circumscribed bl' express prohibition contained in the Constitution itself and unless and until there is a11v provision in the Co11s/it11tio11 expresslv prohibiting legislation 011 the subject <'ither absolutdv or conditionallv. ther<' is no fetter o{ limitation on the plenarv powers which the Legislature is enduwed with for legislating on the topics enumerated in the releva11t fists. This view is bome out bv the decision of the Judicial Committee in Thakur Jagannath Baksh Singh v. The United Provinces [19./6 FCR 111} in which a similar complaint was made by the taluqdars of' Oudh against the United Provinces Tenancy Act (U.P Act 17 E of 1939). 11 was held bv the Judicial Cummittee that the Crown cannot deprive itself of its legislatii•e authority by tile mere .fc1ct that in the exercise of its prerogative it makes a grant of land 1Fithi11 the territory over 1l'hich such legislative authority exists. and 1w court cw1 annul the enactment of a legislative body acting wirhin the legitimate scope of its sovereign competence. fl therefore, it be found that the subject-nwtter o(a Crown grant is within the competence o(a Provincial legislature nothing can prevent that legislature from legisluti11g ahout it unless the Co11stitlllio11 Act itself expresslv prohibits legislatfrm 011 the subject either ahsolutelv or conditional!)'. According!;,~ in the absence of any such express prohibition, the United Pro1•inces Tenancy Act. 1939, which in co11solidati11g and amending the law relating tu agricultural tenancies mill other matters H

:1NDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 191 [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!] eunnected therewirh in Agra and Oudh. dealt wirh A 111atlers wirhin rhe exclusive legislative competence uf the Provincial legislature under Item 21 of Lisi 11 of the Seventh schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, was intra vires the Provincial legislature notwithstanding that admiffedly some <~fits provisions B cut down the absolute rights claimed by the appellant taluqdar to be comprised in the grant 11{ his estate as evidenced by the sanad granted by rhe Crown to his predeeesso1: The same principle has been reiterated br this Court in A1aharaj Umeg Singh and others v. The State of Bombay [1955 2 SCR 164]. It was pointed out c that in view of Art. 246 of the Constitution, no c11rtai/111enl of legislative competence can be spelt out of the terms of clause 5 of the Leffers <If Guaranree given by the Dominion Government to the Rulers of "States" subsequent to the agree111e111s of iVferger. which [) guaranteed, inter alia. the continuance of .!agirs in the merged 'States'. Jhis principle also underlies the recent decision of this Court in 1\1aharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. v. Union oflnJia fl 963 Supp 2 SCR 515 l in which it was pointed 0111 that there is nothing i11 Ari. 295 of the Consfifution which prohibits Parliament ji·om enacting a law alteri11g the terms. and cu11ditio11s of a contrncl or of a grant under ll'hich the liability of the Government of India arises .... " (Emphasis Supplied)

30. One other fundamental aspect which must always be kept in mind while interpreting the provisions ofthc Constitution is the federal structure envisaged by it. Whether or not the Constitution of India is truly federal in character has been the subject matter of debate not only in the Constituent Assembly but also in Courts for over 60 years. The G character of the Constitutional scheme described in the Constituent Assembly Debates was that there were doubts expressed whether the Constitution really provided a federal structure in the governance of the country. The criticism was that the scheme underlying the Constitution was more unitary than federal, on account not only of several provisions H

\92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A in the Constitution that empowered the Centre to at times intervene and enact laws for tbe States but also on account of the Centre's power to take over the governance oftbe State. Repelling that criticism, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar speaking in the Constituent Assembly explained the true charncter of the Constitution oflnclia in the following significant words: B

"There 11 0111)' one point of constitutional import to which I propose to make a reference. A serious complaint is made on the gro11nd that there is too much of ce/7/ralisation a11d that the States hal'e heen reduced to C 1111111icipalities. It is clear that this view is not only an exaggeration. hut is alsofo11nded 011a111is11nderstandi11g of irhat exactlv the Constit11tio11 contrives to do. As to the relation hetween the Centre and the States, it is 11eces.1·mJ' to hear in mind the fundamental principle on IJ V1-!1ich ii rests. The hash; principle of.federalism is that the legislative and executive authority is partitioned hetween the Centre and the States not hy any law to he made hy the Centre hut hy the Constitution itself This is ·what Constitution does. The States under our Constitution are in no H'av dependent 11pon the Centre .fi;r their legislative or executive aulhority. 771e Centre and the States are coequal in this ma/la It is difficult to see hml' such a Constitution can he called cenlralism. It may he that the Constitution assigns to the Ce11tre too large a field for the operation of its legislative and executive authority than is to he found in any other fedeml Constilulion. It ma1· he !hat the residuary powers are given to the Centre and not to the States. But these fc'a/11re.1· do notj(mn the essence offederali.1·111. 771e chief' mark offedemlism as I said lies in the partition of the legislative and executive aulhority hetween the Centre (; and the 1111its hv the Consti111tio11. This is the principle emhodied in our Constitution. " 3 J. To the same effect was the answer given to the criticism by Shri T.T. Krishnamachari during the ConstitnentAssembly Debates H

JINDAL STAlNLESS LT'D. v. STATE OF 1-IARYANA \93 jT. S. THAKUR, CJ\] on the draft Constitution. when he said: A

"Si1~ J would like to go into afewjimdamentul ubjectiuns because as J said ii would not be right fur us lo leave these criticisms zmcontruverted. Lei me take up a matter which is perhaps partly theoretical but one which has a validity so far as the average 111011 in this country is B concerned. Are we ji-aming a unilwy Constitution? Is this Co11stitutio11 centrnlising power i11 Delhi'.? ls there w1y way provided by means of which the position (if people in various areas co11ld be safeguarded. their voices heard in regard tu 111a/ters of their local c admi11istratio11'! I think it is a verF big charge lo make that this Co11stit11tio11 is not a federal Co11stitutio11. a11d that ii is a zmilarv one. We should not fi1rget that this questim1 that the Indian Consti1uti011 should be a federal one has been settled bv our Leader who is no more with us. in the Round Table Conference in London eighteen vears buck. ,.

"/ wo11ld ask 11/V honourable fi-iend 10 applv a verv simple test so far as this Constitution is concerned lo find out whether it is federal or 1101. Tile simple defi11ifio11 J have got fi·om the German school o( political philosophy is that the first cri1erio11 is that the Stale must exerdse compulsive power in the enfi1rce111ent ofa given political orde1; !he second is that these powers must be regularly exercised over all the inhabita11t.1· uf a given territory, and the third is the must important and that is that the activitv of the State must 1101 be cumpletelv circumscribed by orders handed down /(Jr execution bv lhe superior unit. The i111portu11t words are 'must nut be completely circumscribed', which envisages some powers of the State are bound to be circ11111scribed by /he exercise offederal authority. Hal'ing all these fi1ctors in view, J will urge that our Constitution is a federal Constitutio11. I will urge that our Co11stitutio11 is 011e in H

194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I 0 S.C.R.

A irhich .we have given power Iv the 1111its which ure both substantial and significant i11 the legislative sphere a11d in the executive sphere. ·· (Emphasis Supplied)

32. Whether or not the Constitution provides a federal structure B for the governance of the country has been the subject matter of a long line of decisions of this Court reference to all of which may be unnecessary but the legal position appears to be fairly well settled that the Constitution provides for a quasi federal character with a strong bias towards the Centre. The pronouncements recognised the proposition c that even when Constitution may not be strictly federal in its character as the United States of America. where sovereign States came together to constitute a federal union. where each State enjoins a privilege of having a Constitution of its own. the significant feature of a federal Constitution are found in the Indian Constitution which makes it a <JUasi D federal Constitution. if not truly federal in character and in stricto se11su federal. The two decisions which stand out in the long line of pronouncements of this Court on the subject may. at this stage, be briefly mentioned. The first of these cases is the celebrated decisions of this Court in Kesavanmtda Bharati ease (supra). wherein a thirteen Judges Bench of this Court. Sikri CJ (as His Lordship then was), being one of E them talks about whether the Constitution of India was federal in character and if so whether federal character of the Constitution formed the basic feature of the Constitution. Sikri CJ. summed up the basic feature of the Constitution in the following words:

"292 . ......... The true position is thm ere1y provision F (Jf the Constilutivn can he amended provided in the result the basic .finmdation and structure of the Constitution remains the same. The basic structure mav be said tu consist of' the fo!!owi11g features:

G (I) Supremacy of the Constitution.

(2) Republican and Democratic .f<Jrm <f Government.

(3) Secular character r~f' the Co11stitutio11.

(I) Separation (~f powers between the legislature, the H

JINDAL STAINLESS LJ'D. v. STATE OF HARYANA 195

[T. S. THAKUR, CJI] executive and the judiciarv; A

(5) Fedr'ra! character of the Constitution.

293. Tlw ahovr' structure is huilt 011 the basic.foundation i.r'. the dignitr a11d.fi·eedom of'the individual. This is of s11pre111e importance. This ca1111ot hy any form of B a111e11d111e11t he destroved.

294. The a hove .frm11datio11 and the a hove hasic features arc easill' discernih/e 110/ 011/v .fimn the preamh!e hut the 1vl10/e scheme of the Constitution, which I have alreadv discussed " c To the same effect me the views expressed by Shelat and Grover .I.I. who declared that the federal character of the Constitution is a part of its basic structure.

33. In S.U. Bo111111ai v. l!11io11 of India 1994 (3) SCC 1, this D Court had yet another occasion to examine whether the Constitution was federal in nature. Speaking for himself and Justice Kuldeep Singh, Sawant .I. while referring to ll.M Secrvai's commentary on "Constitutional Law of India" held that the principle of federalism has not bc:en watered down so as to make the Constitution unitary in character. The presence in the Constitution exclusive legislative powers conferred on the State and the provision that such powers may be exercised by the Parliament during an emergency may not affect and dilute the federal character of the Constitution. So also, the provisions of Article 355 imposing the duty on the Union to protect a State against internal disorder are not inconsistent with the federal principles nor are the powers vested in the Central Government under Article 356 inconsistent with the federal character of the Constitution.

The Court, in particular, dealt with the question whether List 11 contains unimportant matters thereby denuding the Constitution of its federal character. The Coult observed that List 11 contains very important subjects assigned to the State including the power to levy taxes which powers are made mutually exclusive so that ordinarily the States have independent source of revenue of their own. The following passages H

196 SUPREME LOURT REPORTS [2016] I0 S.C.R.

A from the decision are apposite:

97 (kl 771e view that 1111impurtant matters were assigned tu the States cannot be sustai11edi11 /(ice o( the verv important subjects assigned to the States i11 List 11 and B the same applies lo taxing puwers o{ the Slates. which are made mutuallv exclusive o[/he fa.\'ili:.' powers of the Union so that ordi11arilv the States hal'e i11depe11de11l source of revenue of their own. The legislatil'e entries relating to taxes in List fl show that the sources of c revenue available tu the States are substantial and would i11creasi11glv becom<' more substanrial. h1 addition to the exclusive laxiizg powers of !he States. the Stales become entitled either lo appropriate taxes collected bv the Union or lo a sharl! in the taxes collected bv the D U11io11 ..

99. The above discussion thus shows Iha! the Stales have an independent constitutional existence and rlze1' lzave as i111porta11t a role to plav ilz t/ze political, social, educational and cultural life ofthe peo/Jlc as the U11io11. E Thev are neither satellites nor agents o[ 1/!. '_·c:11tre. The fact that during emergencv um/ i11 cerrain other evenlualities their powers are overridden or i11vaded by the Centre is nut destructive o{ Ihe esse11fial federal nature o( our Cu11stif11fio11. The invasion o{ power in such circumstances is not a 11or111al feature o{ the F Constitution. They are exceplio11s and have to be resorted to only occasionally to meet the exigencies of the special situations. The exceptions are not a rule. JOO. For our purpose. further it is really 1101 necessm:v lo determine ri1zether. i11 spite <Jf !he pruvisio11.1· o[ the G Conslitutio11 referred tu above, our Co11stilutio11 is federal, quasi-federal or unitary in 11at11re. It is not the theoretical label given to the Co11stiturion hut the practical implications of the provisions of the Constitution ivlzich are <~f i111portm1ce to decide the H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. S'TATE OF HARYANA 197

[T. S. THAKUR. CJ!] question that ari:ses in the present context, viz., whether the powers u11der Article 356(1) can be exercised by the President arbitrurily and unmindful of its consequences lo the governance in the State crmcerned. So long us the States are not mere administrative units but in their own right c011stitutio11al potentates with the same para[Jhernalia as the U11io11. a11d with independent Legislature and the Executive co11stituted hi• the same process as the Union. whatever the bias in f(JVour o( the Centre, it cwmol be argued that merelv because (and assuming it is CO/Teel) the Co11Sfitution is labelled u11itarv or <111asi-(ederal or a mixture o( federal a11d 1111itarv c .1·/rw.:ture, the President has 1111restricted power ofissuing Proclamatio11 1111der Article 356{! ). If the Presidential powers under the said pr<Jl'ision are subject to judicial review within the limits discussed above. those li111itatiu11s will have lo be applied strictly while scrutinising the concerned 111alerial. " (Emphasis Supplied)

34. What is important is that B.P. Jecvan Reddy. J. speaking for himself and Aggarwal L while holding the Constitution to be federal in character cautioned that the Centre cannot tamper with the powers confer'red upon the States. States are not mere appendages of the Centre within the sphere allotted to them. The States are supreme and the Centre cannot tamper with their powers. F

35. Justice K. Ramaswamy, speaking for himself also accepted federalism of the Indian Constitution as a basic feature. One other decision that has dealt with the federal character of the Constitution of lndia is Ku/deep Nair I~ Union of India a11tl Ors. (2006) 7 sec 1 wherein this Court held that nature offederalism in the Indian Constitution is no longer res integra. Relying upon the Constituent Assembly Debates G to which we have referred earlier. The Court declared: "50. A lot of energy has been Jevoted on behalf of the petitioners to build up a case that the Co11stit11tio11 o( !11dia is federal. The nature offeJera!ism in the I11Jiw1 H

198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l2016l 10 S.C.R.

A Constitution is 110 longer res integru.

51. There can he no quarrel with the proposition that the Indian model is broadlv hased on federal form of governance. A11s11'ering the criticism of the tilt towards the Centre, Shri l: T Krishnamachari, during debates Fl in the Constituent Assemh~v 011 the draft Constitution. had stated as jiJ11ows:

"'39. In dealing with this question, it is necessarv to hear in mind one fimdamental feature of a Federal Consti/lltion. Jn England, Parliament is sovereign; and in the word1· of Dicev. the three distinguishing features of the principle of Parliamentarv Sovereign~y are that Parliament has the right to make or un111ake any law whatever; that 110 person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament, and that the right or pmrer of Parliament extends to everv part of the Queen :1· dominions ( 1). On the other hand, the essential characteristic of.federalism is '"the distrihution of li111ited F executive, legislative and judicial authority among hodie.1· which are coordinate ·with and independent of each other". The supremacy of the constitution is fimdamental to the existence of" a federal State in order to prevent either the legislature of the federal unit or G those olthe memher Statesfiwn destroying or impairing that delicate balance qf power which satisfies the particular requirements of States which are desirous of union. hut not prepared to merge their individuali(v in a unitv. This supremacy of the constitution is protected hy the authoritv of an independent judicial bod)' to act H

JINDAL STAINLESS !TD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 199 [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!] ns tlw interpreter of' a scheme of distribution of powers. A Nor is any change possihle in the Constitution hy the 01di11ar1· process offederal or State legislation (2). Thus the dominant characteristic of the British Constitution cannot he claimed hr a Federal Constitution like ours." B 3 7. Before we turn to the provisions of Articles 30 I to 307 comprising Part Xlll of the Constitution, we need to also bear in mind the historical backdrop in which that part of the Constitution was enacted. While doing so we must at the threshold acknowledge that the historical perspective of Part XI lJ has been explored several times during the past c in several pronouncements of this Court. The exposition of different stages of evolution and development of what comprises Part Xlll today has been both extensive as well as incisive. The decisions of the Court have gone into great details while examining the history of Part Xlll. It will, therefore, be presumptuous for us to suggest that the historical basis of Part XI ll is a virgin area being traversed for the first time. In fairness to the scholarly pronouncements that have preceded the present batch of cases, we must acknowledge with gratitude the usefulness of the in- depth study and understanding of the Judges who have examined and traced the evolution of Part Xlll while drawing their conclusions from the same. no matter such inferences and conclusions have more often than not been varied which is but natural when one examines history or the events that led to its making. :rn. It is. in our opinion. unnecessary to refer to all the decisions that have till now traced the development of the jurisprudence concerning Part Xlll from its inception. A reference to some of the decisions alone f should, in our opinion. suffice. The first of these decisions to which we must make a reference is the Constitution Bench decision in M.P. V. Sundemramier v. State of Andlira Pradesh, AIR 1958 SC 468. That was a case filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Prohibition restraining the State of Andhra Pradesh from imposing a G tax on inter-State trade of sale and purchase of yarn. The levy and collection of any such tax was according to the petitioner contrary to the provision contained in Article 282 (6) of the Constitution oflndia. One of the questions that fell for consideration of the Court was whether the States could impose a tax on inter-State sales having regard to the ]-]

200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I 0 S.C.R.

A provisions of Articles 246 and 301 of the Constitution of India. The argument was that the freedom guaranteed under Article 301 included freedom from taxation with the result that any tax on inter-State sales would offend that guarantee. The contention was rejected by this Court in unequivocal terms. The Court said: B "(50) This contention suffers, i11 uur opi11io11. from serious infirmities. it overlooks that our Co11stilutiu11 l1'as 1/0f wriffen on a tabula-rasa. that a Federal Constirution had bee11 esrablished 1111der rhe Govemmellf C of India Act. 1935. a11d tlwugh rhat has 1111dentone considerable change bv wav of repeal. modification and addirion. it still remains the fi·amewurk un which the present Cu11stit11tio11 is built, and that the pruvisions o( the Constitutio11 must accordingfv be read in the light of the wovisions of the Guvermnent o( India At'!. " (Emphasis supplied)

39. Three years later came the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Atiabari Tea Company Ltd. case (supra). The petitioner in that case questioned the constitutional validity of Assam Taxation (on Goods Carried by Roads or Inland Waterways) Act, (Assam Act XII! of l 954 ), before the High Cowi. The Writ Petition having failed. the matter was brought up in appeal before this Court which was heard alongwith several petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of F India. The impugned legislation levied taxes on certain goods carried by road and inland waterways in the State of Assam. The levy under the legislation was challenged primarily on the ground that the same was ultra vires of the Constitution inter aila because of their repugnance with the provision of Article 301 of the Constitution. This Court by a G majority struck down the Constitutional validity of the enactment holding that the impugned levy operated directly and immediately as a restriction on free trade. commerce and intercourse guaranteed under Article 30 I of the Constitution of India. The decision propounded three diffen:nt points of view. one each taken by B.P. Sinha. CJ. and J.C. Shah, J. and the third by majority comprising P.B. Gajendragadkar. K.N. Wanchoo 1-1

.JINDAL STAINLESS !TD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 201 IT. S. THAKUR, CJL] and K.C. Das Gupta ..l.l. We shall presently deal with the rationale A underlying the three vic:ws but before we do so, we may gainfully extract l'rom the decision rendered by Sinha. CJ., tl1e historical perspective in which Part XII I of the Constitution was enacted. In Para 9 of the Report, Sinha. CJ.. as His Lordship then was. traced the evolution of Part Xlll in th~ following words: B .. 9. In order to fullr appreciale lize implicaliom of' the pmvisions olParl XIII olthe Comtit11tio11, it is necessary to hear in mind the historv and hackground of' those prm·1szu11s. lhe Constitution Act of' 1935 (Government of India Act. 26 ('Geo. 5, Ch. 2) which envisages the c federal co11slitutin11 jar !he H-f10le of India, including it-!wt was then Indian Jndia in contradislinction to British India, H-11ich could not he fit!h· implemented and ivhich also introduced fiill provincial autonomy enacted Section 297 prohibiting certaill reslrictiolls on illfernal trade ill these terms: D

297. ( 1) No Provincial J,egislarure or Government shall-

(a) Br virtue of the ent1~v ill the Provincial Legislative List rel(Jfing lo trade and commerce within the Province, or the entry in that list relating to the production, supply, E and distrihution of commodities, have power to pass a/ff law or toke any executive action prohibiting or reslricting the entry into, or export .fim11 lhe Province of" good\' of' am· class or description; or f (hJ By l'irt11e ol onything in this Act have power to impose om• tax, cess, toll or due which, as between good<; 11w1111j'actured or produced in the Province and similar goodl' not so manufactured or produced, discriminates in favour of the former; or which, in the case of good1· man11f{1crured or produced outside the Province, G discrimi11ates between good1· 1110m1factured or produced i11 one locality and similar goods 1nanufact11red or produced in an01her localil_v.

(2) Anv law passed in contravention of' this section shall, H

202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I0 S.C.R.

A tu the extent of the cv11trave11tio11, be i11valid. ,.

10. It will be noticed that the prohibition contained in the section quoted above applied only lo Provi11cial Civvern111ents and Pruvi11cial Legislatures with reference tu entries in the Provincial Legislative List relating to B trade and commerce within the Province and lo production. supp(v and distribution of commodities. T'/iat section dealt with prohibitions or restrictions in respect uf import info O/" export from a Province. u( goods generalh: It also dealt with the power lo impose taxes c etc. and pruhibited discrimination against goods manufi1ctured ur produced outside a Province ur guods produced in different localities. Par/ XIII of the Cunstitution has introduced all those prohibitions, 1101 only in respect o( State Legislatures, but of Parliament also . .... D

11. 111 this cu1111ection it has got to be remembered that before the co111me11ce111e11r of the Constitution about two- rhirds of l11dia was directly under British rule and was called 'Britis/z India· and the remai11i11g about 011e-third E was being directly ruled by the l'ri11ces and was knm1•n as "Native States". There were a large number uf them ivith varying degrees of sovereignly vested in them. Those rulers had, broadly speaki11g, the trappings uf a Sovereign State with power to impose taxes and to regulate the jlow <~f trade, commerce and intercourse. F It is a nutorious fact that many of them had erected trade barriers seriously impeding the free }low <if trade, commerce and intercourse, nut 011/y shutting out but also shutti11g in cummodities meant for mass consumptio11. Between the years 19-17 and 1950 almusl all the Indian G States entered into engagements with the Ciover11111e11t 1if India and ultimately merged their individualities into India as (Jlle political unit. 11·ith the result that what was called Britisl1 India, broadly speakinf!:. became, under the C'onstirution, Part A States, and subject to certain exceptions 1101 relevant to our purpose, the Native States H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 203

[T. S. THAKUR. CJI] became Part B States. We also know that before the A Constitution introduced the categories of' Part A States, Part B Stares and Part C States (excluding Part D relating to other territories), Part B States themselves, be/ore their bei11g con.1·tiluted into so many units, contained many small Stales, which .fi1r111ed themselves B into Unions <;/'a number of States, and had such trade barriers and custom posts. even inter se. But even after the 111erge1~ the Constitution had to take notice of the existence of' trade barriers and therefore had to make transitional provisions 11'ith the ultimate o~;ective ti( abolishing them all. A1ost of those Native St"tes, big or c small, had their own taxes cesses tolls and other imposts and dwies meant nor onlv fur raising revenue, but also as trade barriers a11d tariff walls. It was in the background of these facts and circumstances that the Constitution bv Article 301 provided for the abolition [) of all those trade barriers and tariff' walls. fYhen fur the first time in the historv of India the entire territorv within the geographical boundaries of!mlia, minus what became Pakistan, was knit into one political unit. it was necessarv to abolish all those trade barriers and custom E posts in the interest of national solidarilJ'. economic a11d cultural unity as also of freedom of trade. commerce and intercourse. "

(Emphasis supplied) F

40. The majority opinion offered by Gajendragadkar J.. also traced the history of Part XIII in the following words:

"33. Let us first recall the political and co11stitutiom!I G background of Part XIII. It is a matter of com111011 knowledge that, befbre the Constitution was adopted, nearly two-thirds of the territory of India was subject to British Rule and was then known as British bidia, while the remaining part <~/the territory <~/India was H

204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] !0 S.C.R.

governed h1· Indian Princes and it consisted of several Indian States ..·1 large nwnher of these States claimed sovereig11 rights within the 1imitatio11s imposed hy the paramount pml'er in that hehal(, and they purported to exercise their legislative power of imposing taxes in respect of' trade and commerce which inevitably led to B the erection of' customs harriers betvveen themselves and th<' rest of' India. In the matter of such barriers British India was governed hy the provisions of Section 297 of the Constitution Act, I935. To the prorisions of this sectirm we ;vii/ have occasion later to refer during the c course of thi.1 judgment. Thus, prior lo 1950 the flow of trade and commerce was impeded al several points which co11stit11ted the boundaries of Indian States. After lndia attained political .freedom in 1947 and hefore the Constitution was adopted the historical process ol the D merger and integration of the several Indian States with the rest of' the co1111trv was speedily accomplished with the result that whe11 the Constitution was first passed the territories of' India consisted of Part A States v.•hich hroadlv stated represe11ted the provinces in British India, and Part B States which were made up ol lndian States. This merger or integration of' Indian States with the Union of' India >Fas preceded hy the merger and consolidation of some of' the States inter-se hetween thernselves. It is with the knowledge of' the trade barriers which had heen raised hv the Indian States in exercise ol their legislative powers that the Constitution- makers Famed the Articles in Part Xll!. The main ohject of Article 301 obviousZv was to af!ow the free flow of the stream of' trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India. " G

41. Then came the decision of this Court in Automobile case (supra) wherein, this Court examined the challenge to the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act, inter aila, on the ground that levy of taxes imposed under the said Act were offensive to Article 301 of the Constitution of 1-1

JINDAL STAINLESS !TD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 205 [T. S. THAKUR, CJI]

India. S.K. Das, J. speaking for the majority also traced the historical background of Part Xlll in the following words:

·· 7. So far we have set out the factual and legal background against which the problem he.fore us has to he solved We must now say a few word~ regarding the historical background. It is necessm:v to do this. hecause extensive references have heen made to Australian and American decisions, Australian decisions with regard to the interpretation of Section 92 of the Australian Constitution a11d American decisions with c regard lo the Commerce clause of the American Co11sti11.1tio11. This Court pointed out in the Atiabari Tea . Co. case (196IJ I SCR 809: (AIR I96I SC 232). that it vvould not he ahmvs safe to re~v upon the American or Australian decisions in interpreting the provisions ol our Constitution. Valuahle as those decisions might he in showing how the problem a/freedom of trade, co111111erre a11d intercourse was dealt with in other.federal co11stitutio11s, the provisions of our Constitution must he interpreted against the historical background in ·which our Constitution was made; the background ol prohlems vvhich the Constitution-makers tried to solve according to the genius of the Indian people whom the Constitution-makers represented in the Constituent Assemh/)-: Thefir.1·t thing to he noticed in this connection is that the Constitution-makers were not writing on a F clean slate. 7/Jey had the Government o.lfndia Act, I935 and they also hpd the administrative set up which that . Act envisaged. India then consisted of . various administrative units known as Provinces, each with its own administrative set up. There were differences of G language, religion etc. Some of the Provinces were economically more developed than the others. Even inside the same Province, there were under developed, developed and highly developed areas from the point of view ol industries, communications etc. The problem H

206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20161 JO S.C.R.

A of economic integration with which the Constitution- . makers 1rere faced was a prohlem ·with many facets. iko questions. howeve1; stood out: one question was how to achieve a federal, economic and fiscal integration, so that economic policies affecting the B interests of'Jndia as a whole could he carried out without putting an ever-increasing strain on the unity of' India, particularly in the context ol a developing economy. The second question was how to foster the development of" areas which were under-deFeloped without creating too many preferential or discriminative harriers. Besides c the Provinces, there were the Indian States also known as Indian India. After India attained political fi'eedmn in 194 7 and he/ore the Constitution was adopted, the process of' merger and integration ol the- Indian States t1·ith the rest ol the country had heen accon1plished so tha! when the Constitution 1rns first passed the territory ol/ndia consisted olPart A States, which hroad(v stated, represented the Provinces in British India, and Part B States which were made up ol Indian States. 771ere were trade harriers raised hy the Indian States in the exercise ol their legislative powers and the Constitution-makers had to make provisions with regard to those trade harriers as well. The evolution of" a federal structure or a quasifederal structure necessarilv involved, in the context of' the conditions then prevailing, a distribution ol po11'er.1' and a hasic part ol our Constitution relates r to that distrihution with the three legislative lists in the Seventh Schedule. ., . ... . .. "

42. Hidayatullah J., in a separate dissenting opinion traced at great length the historical evolution of not only the federal structure of the G Government of India Act, 1915 but also the recommendations made by the Simon Commission and the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Evolution of such federalism and for the protection of trade, commerce and intercourse. His Lordship referred to the backdrop in which the Government of India Act, 1935 was enacted, including the H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 207

[T. S. THAKUR, CJ!] recommendations made by the Butler Committee, the Round Table A Conference, the Federal Structure Committee, the Federal Legislature and Provincial Legislature Committee and the Joint Parliamentary Committee to eventually conclude that the avowed object underlying all these recommendations and constitutional framework was to ensure that the accession of the State to the federation implies its acceptance of the B principle that it will not set up a barrier to free interchange so formidable as to constitute a threat to the future of the federation. Based on the historical developments decades before the enactment of Government oflndia Act, 1935. his Lordship concluded:

c '"95. The detailed examination of the historv lving at the back of the Government of India Act. 1935 lays bare some fundamental facts and premises. It shows that the process through a whole centurv was the breakup of a highlv centralized Government and the creation of D auto11omo11s Provinces with distinct and separate political existence, to be combined inter se and with the Indian States. at a later period. in a federation. To achieve this. not only was there a division of the heads of legislation. but the fi11ancial resources were also divided and separate fiscs f(Jr the &deration and the E Provinces were established. The fields of taxati011 were demarcated, amf those for the Provinces were chosen with special care to make these units self-s11pporti11g as .fi1r as possible wirh enough to spare for "11ation- buildi11g activities". !11 this arrangement. the door was open for the Indian States to join on the same basis and on terms of equalitv. The most important fuel was that unlike the American cmd the Canadian Constitutions the commerce power was divided between the Centre and the Provinces as the Entries quoted bv us clearly show. The commerce power of the Provinces was exercisable within the Provinces. The fetter on the commercial power of the Provinces was placed bv Section 297. This was in two directions. Clause (a) o[ sub-seclion (I) banned restrictions at the barriers o[ H

208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I 0 S.C.R.

A the Provinces on the entrv and export u( goods. and clause (b) prohibited discriminatiu11 in taxing goods between goods munu(actured and produced in the Province as against goods 1101 su manufactured or produced and local discriminations. ·· B (Emphasis supplied)

43. In the opinion of Hidayatullah Las his Lordship then was, several pitfalls existed in the 1935 Act regarding trade and commerce which were sought to be remedied by the framers of the Constitution c while maintaining its federal structure. The following passage is, in this regard, instructive:

"96. When drajiing the Constitutio11 of India, the D Constituent Assembly being aware of the problems in various countries where freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse has been provided dijfere11tly and also the way the Courts of those countries have viewed the relative provisions. must have attempted to evolve a E pattern of such freedom suitable to Indian conditions. The Constituent Assembly realised that the provisions of Section 297 and the Chapter on Discrimi11ations i11 the Government of India Act, 1935 hardly met the case, and were inadequate. They had to decide the fi.1/lowing questions: (a) whether to give the commerce power only to Parliament or to divide it between Parliament and the State Legislatures: (b) whether to ensure freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse inter-State. that is to say, at the borders of the States or to ensure it even intra-State; (c) whether to make the prohibition against restrictions absolute or qualified, and if so, in what manner: (d) if qualified, by whom was the restriction to be imposed and to what extent; (e) whether the ji·eedom should be to the individual or also to trade and commerce as a whole; (/) what to do with the existing laws in British India and more so, in the acceding l11dia11 H

JINDAL STAINLESS Ll'D. v. STATE OF HARYANA 209

IT. S. THAKUR, CJI]

States; (g) whether any special provisions were needed for emer.~l'ncies; (h) what should he the special provisio11s to enahle the States to levy taxes on sale of good1', which taxes were to be the main source of income for the States according to the experts. All these matters have, in fact, bee11 covered in Part XIII, and the pi(falls which were disclosed in the Law Reports of the Countries which had accepted freedom of trade and commerce have been attempted to he avoided by choosing language appropriate for the purpose. Jn addition to this. the hroad pattern of the political set- up, namely, a federation of autonomous States vvas not c lost sight of These autonomous condiiions had strengthened during the operation of the 1935 Constitution and led to what Prol Coupland described as .. Provincial-patriotism··. for which the reason, according to the learned Professor was: ])

"Jn the course of the last few years, moreover, the sense of Provincial patriotism has been strengthened hy the advent of a full Provincial selfgovernment. The people 10ok a new pride in Governments that were now in a sense theirs. " (The Constitutional Prohlem in India, part E ill p. 40) ...

44. The historical backdrop painted by the decisions of this Court referred to above has not been challenged on a question of fact. F Inferences drawn from the same may have, as noticed earlier, varied depending on the individual perspective of the Judges about the said backdrop. The common thread that runs through the historical narratives in the pronouncements of this Court however is discernible and may be briefly summed-up at this stage. The first of these threads that runs through the historical perspective is the fact that before commencement G of the Constitution nearly 2/3'd of the country was ruled by the British while the remaining l/3'd was ruled by the Princes also known as native States that enjoyed va1ying degrees of sovereignty over their respective territories. These rulers had the power to impose taxes and to regulate H

210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12016] I 0 S.C.R.

A the flow of trade, commerce and intercourse. Some of them had erected trade barriers thereby impeding free flow of trade, commerce and intercourse. With the merger of these Princely States into the dominion of India to constitute one single political entity, that pait of the country that was ruled by the British came to be known as Part-A State while the native States became Part B States. What is significant is that even B after the merger of these States, the Constitution had to acknowledge the existence of trade barriers and make transitional provisions with a view to eventually abolishing the same. 1t was in that background that the Constitution by A1ticle 30 I provided for the abolition of all such trade barriers consequent upon the entire geographical boundaries of India c being knit into one political unit. The whole object underlying the removal of such barriers was to facilitate free trade, commerce and intercourse in the interest of national solidarity and economic unity of the country. The evolution of Articles 301 to 307 comprising Part Xlll of the Constitution is also punctuated by several events, twists and turns to D which we may briefly refer at this stage, but, while we may do so, we need to remember that Section 297 of the Government of India Act. 1935 dealt with the subject that eventually came.under the umbrella of Part Xlll and prohibited provincial governments from imposing barriers on trade within the country. The said provision also prohibited levy of cess, tolls or other tax duties which discriminated between the goods manufactured in one locality as against similar goods manufactured elsewhere. It is because of the said provision that Vcnkatarama Iyer, J. in MPV Smu/eraramier ~~ case (supra) made the observation that the Constitution was not written on a tabula rasa.

45. The first germ plasma for Article 30 l was located in what was introduced as Clause 13 in the draft submitted by the Sub-Committee on fundamental rights comprising Mr. K.M. Munshi, Sir Alladi Krishna swami Ayyar and Sir B.N. Rau amongst others. The clause was in the following words:

G "Suhjecr to regulation hy the law of' the U11io11, trade. commerce and intercourse among the units, i1:hether hy means <Jl internal carriage or hy ocean navigation, shall he fi"ee: H

JINDAL STAINLESS Ll'D. v. STATE Of HARYANA 211

IT. S. THAKUR, CH]

Provided that any unit may hy law impose reasonahle A restrictions thereon in the interest of ptiblic order, moralitv or health. " from the note of Sir B.N. Rau it is evident that the first part of clause 13 (supra) was adopted from Section 92 of the Australian Constitution while the proviso at the end of the clause was new. B

46. Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar in the Draft Repmi of 10 1\ 14'h and l 5'h April, 1947 in relation to Clause 13 suggested that it must be made clear that:

"(I) good1·.fi·om other parts of India than in the units' c concerned coming into the units cannot escape duties and taxes to which the goodv produced in the units in themsell·es are suhject.

(2) it 11111st also he open to the unit in an emergency to place restrictions on the rights declared hy the clause. " D

47. The above suggestions were accepted and it was modified and incorporated as Clause 14 in the following words: "14. (1) Subject to regulation hy the law of the Union trade, commerce and intercourse among the units hy E and henveen the citizens shall he free:

Provided that any unit may by law impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of puhlic orde1; morality or health or in an emergency: f Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent any unit .ftnm imposing 011 good~ imported.from other units the same duties and taxes to which the good~ produced in the unit are .rnhject:

Provided.further that no preference shall he given by G any regulation of commerce or revenue hy a unit to one unit over anothe1:

/N.B. - A proviso will have to he added to meet the difficulty pointed out in para 6 of our report.] H

212 SUPREME CULJRT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A (2) Trade, cvmmerce or intercourse within the territories of the Union by or with any perso11 other tha11 the citizens shall be regulated and controlled by the law of the Uniort. ·

48. The above clause then came up for consideration before the B Advisory Committee where an elaborate debate ensued. What is of considerable importance is the statement of Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar where he explained the purpose of enabling a State to impose reasonable restriction in the interest of public order. mora Iity. health or in an emergency: c "Cltairnum: Then '.et. us take up clause 1-1

C. Rajagopalacltari: I Think we should add to 1-1 (I) that this shall not be a bar to the imposition o( taxes for genuine purposes o[ reve11ue.

D Many Members: That comes later 011: "N.B. A proviso will have to be added to meet the difficulty pointed out in para 6 of our report. "

C. Rajagopa/acl1t1ri: That is wl1y f am adding it.

E Alladi Krisluwswami Ayyar: "Subject to regulation by the law of the Union, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the units by and between the citize11s shall be free. " That is the general principle. The11 come the exceptions, "Provided that any unit may by law impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public orde1~ morality or health or in an emergency. " Suppose there is a general famine, and people are starved, that is what is meant here to be dealt with.

And then "Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent any unit from imposing on good~ i111poned from other units the same duties and taxes to which the goods produced in the unit are subject. " That is to say. we ought not to differentiate; but at the same time, goods coming in should not go scot-ji·ee; they should be su~ject to the same duty as goods produced in the area. H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 213

[T. S. THAKUR, C.ll!

A11d then .. Provided further that no preference shall he given hy any regulation of commerce or revenue by a unit to one unit over another. " NOH'. kindly read paragraph 6 of the report, regarding adding a proviso.

K.M. I:anikkar: Rajaji (C. Rajagopalachari) has raised the question of the right of the units to raise taxes, and says this right should not he denied I, howeve1; think this is a dangerous power to he given to the units. 111is mav result in the creatio11 of so many competing units. We have allmved /(Jr two things. We have allowed the unit to tax its own industries. We also allow things c hrought in to he taxed. for the sake of parity. But out .fhe11ll\' want to go a little fiirther and say that the right to impose taxes, or transit duty or some other kind of duty mu.1·t he give11 to the units. That I am aji-aid, will he a 11egatio11 of the clause. There are certain rates and duties existing in Indian States which for budgetary and other reasons cannot now he extinguished immediately. It may be possible to extinguish them over a period of time. hy agreement, hut not immediateiy.

C. Rajagopalachari: If the States everywhere can impose taxes and duties for revenue, cannot the provinces also do so?

Alladi Krislmaswami AJyar: We do not give a carte hlanche to the States. It has been pointed out that certain condition of things ohtain at present in the F States, and ...

K.M. Panikkar: Let me explain the position. The position with regard to the internal customs in the States is complicated. Jn a large numher of States these customs or duties do not exist. For example for the G whole of" the Punjah States there is no right for internal customs. For Hyderahad they have the right to impose a tax up to 5% on~v. both on imports and exports. Jn 7/"avancore and Cochin it is governed hy what is called H

214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A inter-portal convention. A large nwnher of States have no right whatever even noV1· for imposing customs duty. hut a considerable numher of them do enjov this power and rheir hudgeta1y position today is based on the customs duties thev receive, hoth rhe maritime States and the internal States. Therefore arrangements will have lo he made with them hy agreement and contract for setting this matter.

Alladi Krish11aswami Ayyar: The Union Powers Committee :1· attention was drmvn to this matter and it was .rnggested hy Sir V 7: Krishnamachari and Sir B.L. Mitter that some reference should he made to it in their report. fVe wanted to permit the States to enjoy the indulgence they have heen enjoying. But we should guard against ('011Verting the country into competing units; that will he against the federation idea. [)

Chairman: What shall we do ahout the note? A proviso will have to he added to meet the difficulty pointed out in para 6 of the report. Shall we leave ii as it is or shall we draft i(! E C. Raiagopalaclwri: I would request mernhers who have ;!,iven thou,e,ht to this suhject to please inform me how the unir.1· will raise their revenue. As it is, the Union does not contemplate the distrihution of subsidies to the proi·inccs. The proPinces or groups differ among themselves, some are rich and some are pom: Some are capahle of managing with their existing resources; but others ma)! have to increase their revenue for managing their aff{1irs. ll.vou impose so many limitations on them, how can they do that? It is all very well to say fi"ee ( .1' trade is 11eressar1·; hut how are the provinces to live?

Alladi Krislmaswami Ayyar: So far as the provincial legislatures are concerned, there is provision in Sec. ]97 of' the present Government al India Act itself' (Read1) "No Provincial Legislature or Government shall H

JINDAL STAINLESS LrD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 215

IT. S. THAKUR, CJlj by virtue of entry *** have power to pass any law or A take any executive action ***description ... "

C. Rajagopalachari: But at present we have the receipts fin111 customs and other rece1jJts.

Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar: The other day the Madras B Premier said he could stop the import of textiles fimn !30111/wy and other places outside Madras: hut it was pointed out to him that until the constitution is altered he cannot do so. This theory of self-sufficiency of different units is dangerous in our cow1t1)', hecause we ha11e to depend upon one anothe1'. c Govind Ba/labh Pant: 77iere is 11nani111ity ahout the bodv of this clause and it is clear that there should not be any discrimination against one unit hy another unit. Otherwise we ·will he going against the ve1;' sense of a D Union or a Federal Constitution. If the units are to be discri111inated against, we will come to hlows more often than otherwise. Therefore this should be avoided. The onlv thing to he considered is how to give effect to the suggestion made in para 6 of the President:~ letter which we have received through the chairman. Should we E append a note to the effect that the Constituent Assemb(v may consider ho1v best to give effect to this clause in relation to the States or shall we put up a draft. If we are not going to put up a draft, then the matter is simple enough. ·· F

49. The Advisory Committee accepted the recommendation of the Sub-Committee in relation to Clause 14 with one change that the sub-clause providing for central regulation of trade by or with non-citizens G was dropped as being vague and unnecessary. The Advisory Committee in its rep01i submitted on 23rd April, 1947 incorporated the above provision as Clause 10. Certain amendments to the said clause were suggested and adopted by the Constituent Assembly.

21 (i SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A 50. In the first Draft Constitution of October, 1947, Clause 17 unde1went further amendments and eventually appeared in the Draft Constitution of 1948 as Clause 16 incorporated in the Fundamental Rights Chapter in the following words:

B ·· 16. Suhject to the provisions of Article 244 of this Constitution and of' any lmr made hy Parliament. trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall he .fi'ee. "

51. It is noteworthy to mention here that Inter-State trade and commerce was dealt with in Articles 243, 244 and 245 in the Draft Constitution of I 948 which Articles were in the following terms:

''243. No prefere11ce shall be given to one State over . D a11other nor shall any discrimination he made hetween one State and another hy any law or regulation relating to trade or commerce, whether carried hy la11d, water or air.

244. Notwithstanding anything contained in article 16 or in the last preceding article of this Constitution, it shall he lawfitl for any State -

(a) to impose 011 good importedfi'om other States any tax to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that State are suhject, so, hmvever, as F not to discriminate hetween good1· so imported and goocl1· so manufactured or produced; and

(h) to impose hy land such reasonahle restrictions on the fi"eedom of trade, commerce or intercourse CJ with that State as may he required in the puhlic interests:

Provided that during a period of.five years from the co111me11ce111ent of' this Constitution the provisions of clause (h) of' this article shall not apply to trade or H

JINDAL STAINLESS IJ'D. v. STATE OF HARYANA 217

IT. S. THAKUR, CJ!] commerce in any of the commodities mentioned in clause (a) of" Article 306 of" this Constitution.

24 5. Parliament shall hy law appoint such authority as it consider.1· appropriate for the carrving out of the provisions of Articles 243 and 244 of" this Constitution and confer 011 the authority so appointed such powers and such duties as it thinks necessm:v. "

52. The Ministry of Industry and Supply expressed some reservation regarding clause (b) of Article 244 and demanded abolition c of the said clause altogether. The Ministry appears to have argued that it was not possible to foresee the circumstances in which the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with a State will need to be interfered with by that State in the public interest, unless it be on the basis of discrimination between the residents of one State to another, and this would be wholly contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. [See: B. Shiva Rao; the Framing of' liidia :1· Constitution, Volume-IV, Page 329}

53. The note in support of the proposed clause (b) to Article 244, however, clearly suggests that restrictions refeITed to in clause (b) were meant to be restrictions other than by way of taxation. The explanatory note which was appended by Sir B.N. Rau was in the following words:

"Note: During a period of depression owing to desiruction by flood or otherwise of crops in any particular State, it may be necessm:v for the State to impose restrictions on the export of" any crop from such State in the puhlic interests. Similarly on the outbreak ol any epidemic disease. like plague, in a State it may he necessary for a neighhouring State to impose restrictions rm the fi·eedom of' intercourse hetween the inhahitants of" that State with the inhahitants ol such neighhouring State. Clause (h) of" Article 244 is intended ro give power to the State to impose such restrictions. ··

218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 10 S.C.R.

A 54. On 8111 of September, 1949, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar moved an amendment seeking to delete Articles 243, 244 and 245 and the same was adopted. Simultaneously, a new Pa1i XA was introduced containing draft Article 274-A to E. Dr. Ambedkar informed the House that the Articles that were otherwise scattered were now brought together so as to ensure that members could get a holistic idea regarding trade and B commerce. Article 274-A was a repetition of Article l 6 and laid down the general principle. Aliicle 274-B empowered Parliament to impose restrictions in public interest. Article 274-C prohibited Parliament and the State legislatures from making any law giving any preference to one State over another, or making any discrimination between one State and c another, except when Parliament found it necessary to do so to deal with a situation arising from scarcity of goods; A1iicle 274-D vested with the State legislatures the power to impose non-discriminatory tax qua extemal goods and to impose reasonable restrictions in public interest and Article 274-E provided for an Inter-State Commission.

D 55. The Constituent Assembly Debates suggests that the introduction of Articles 274A to 274E was severely criticized by several members of the Assembly including Thakur Das Bhargava and Dr. P.S. Deshmukh who moved several amendments to these clauses but the same were rejected and Articles 274-A to 274-E including Articles 274 DD and 274 DOD were adopted without any modification. These A!iicles are now renumbered and appear as Articles 301 to 307 of the Constitution oflndia.

56. It is in the above backdrop that question No. l shall have to be answered which turns on a true and c01Tect interpretation of Article 301 F of the Constitution. We must at the threshold say that while attempting to answer the question we are not on virgin ground, for this Court has in Atiabari Tea Company case (supra) examined the matter at great length. The decision of this Court in Automobile case (,rnpra) has modified the view in Atiahari. by b1inging in the concept of compensatory taxes which this Collli held to be outside Paii Xlll of the Constitution. Ci

57. While J.C. Shah, J. took the view that all taxes regardless whether they are discriminatory or otherwise would constitute an impediment on free trade and commerce guaranteed under A1iicle 30 l of the Constitution of India, Sinha, CL held that taxes per se were totally outside the purview of Article 301 and could never constitute a !-I

.llNDAL STAINLESS Ll'D. v. STATE OF HARYANA 219 [T. S. THAKUR, CJl] restriction except where the same operated as a fiscal barrier that prevented free trade, commerce and intercourse. The view taken by .Justice Shah, .I. was not supported by any one of the counsel appearing for the parties for it was candidly accepted that the same was an extreme view that was legally unsupportable. What was all the same argued on behalf of the dealerslassessees was that the majority view that propounded the test of "direct and immediate'' effect on free trade, commerce and intercourse was the c01Tect view. Reliance, in particular, was placed by learned counsel for the dealers/assessees upon the following passages appearing in the majority judgment authored by Gajendragadkar, J. to contend that the same propounded the correct legal position: c

"50. Let us now revert to Article 301 and ascertain the width and amplitude of its scope. On a careful e.rnmination ol the relevant provisions ol Part XIII as a H1wle as well as the principle ol economic unitJ' which ]) it is intended to sa{eguard hy making the said provisions, the conclusion appears to us to be inevitable that the content ol.fi"eedom provided for /Jy Article 301 was larger than the fi'eedom contemplated by Section 297 ol the Constitution Act o{ 1935, and whatever else E it may or may not include, it certain~y includes movement of" trade which is of the ve1y essence of all trade and is its i11tegral part. fl the transport or the movement of good1· is taxed solelv on the basis that the good1· are thus carried or transported that. in our opinion, direct~y affects the freedom of trade as contemplated hy Article F

301. I/the movement, transport or the can'.)Jing of goods is allowed to he impeded, ohstructed or hampered by taxation without satisfying the requirements ol Part XII! the fi-·eedom ol trade 011 which so much emphasis is laid hy Article 301 would turn to he illu.1·orv. When Article G 3111 provides that trade shall he fi·ee throughout the territmy of" India primari~y it is the movement part ol the trade that it has in mind and the movement or the transport parr ol trade must he fi'ee subject ol course to the limitations and exceptions provided hy the other H

220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 10 S.C.R.

A Articles of Part Xiii. l7wt we think is the result of Article 301 read with the other Articles in Part XIII.

51. Thus the intrinsic evidence furnished by some of the Articles of Part XIII sh01vs that taxing laws are not cxcludedfiwn the operation o/Article 301: which means B that tax laws can and do amount to restrictions freedom .fi'om which is guaranteed to trade under the said Part. Does that mean that all tax laws attract the provisiom· of Part XIII whether their impact on trade or its movemelif is direct and immediate or indirect and remote? c It is preciselv hecause the word1· used in Article 301 are verv wide. and in a sense vague and indefinite that the prohlem of co11strui11g them and determini11g their exact width and scope becomes complex a11d difficult. J-hnve1-er. in i11terpreti11g the provisions of the Conslilution we must ahvay.1· hear in mind that the I) relernnt pruvisio11 ""has to he read not in vacuo hut as occurring in a single complex instrument in which one part may throw light on another". (Vide: James v. CommonYi:ealth of Australia - 1936 A.C. 578 at pg. 613). Jn construing Article 301 we nntst, therefore, have E regard to the general scheme of our Constitution as well as the particular provisions in regard to taxing laws. J71e construction of Article 301 should not he determined on a pureZv academic or doctrinnaire considerations; in construing the said Article we must adopt a realistic f approach and hear in mind the essential features of the separation of powers on which our Constitution rests. It is a federal constitution which we are interpreting, and so the impact of Article 301 must he judged accordinglv. Besides, it is not irrelevant TO remember in this connection that the Article we are construing c; imposes a constitutional limitation on the power of the Parliament and State Legislatures to levy taxes, and generallv, hut f(n· such limitation, the power of taxation would he presumed to he for public good and would not he subject to judicial review or scrutiny. Thus H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 221

[T. S. THAKUR, CJl] considered we think it would be reasonable and proper to hold that restrictions freedom from "ll'hich is guaranteed hv Article 30I, would he such restrictions as direct~v and immediately restrict or impede the free flow or movement of trade. Taxes may and do amount to restrictions: hut it is onZv such taxes as directZv and immediately restrict trade that would fall within the purview of Article 301. The argument that all taxes should /Je governed hy Article 30I whether or not their impact on trade is immediate or mediate, direct or remote, adopts, in our opinion, an extreme approach which cannot he upheld. If the said argument is accepted it c would mean, for instance, that even a legislative enactment prescribing the minimum 1vages to industrial employees may fall under Part XIII because in an economic sense an additional wage hill may indirectly affect 1rade or commerce. We are, therefore, satisfied that in determining the limits of the width and amplitude of the freedom guaranteed hy Article 30I a rational and workah/e test to apply would be: Does the impugned restriction operate direct(y or im1r1ediately on trade or its movement? It is in the light of this test that we propose to examine the validity of the Act under scrutiny in the present proceedings. "

58. On behalf of the respondent-States it was per contra argued that the power to levy taxes is a sovereign power that remains totally unaffected by Article 30 l of the Constitution of India. Free trade, commerce and intercourse was not, according to the learned counsel, to be understood as free from any restrictions, leave alone free from taxes which the State legislatures were otherwise competent to levy. Enunciation oflaw by Sinha, CJ. was according to the learned Attorney G General for India and learned Counsel appearing for the States, the conect view which ought to be accepted in preference to the other two contrary views propounded in the judgment. Reliance, in particular, was placed by Mr. Rohatgi and learned Counsel for the respondent-States upon the following passages appearing in Sinha, CJ. 'sjudgment: H

222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] IO S.C.R.

A '' 14. Viewed i11 this all co111prehe11sive sense taxation on trade, c0111111crce and intercourse would have many ramifications and 1rnuld cover almost the entire field of pul1lic taxation, hoth in the Union and in the State Lists. It is almost impossi/Jle to think that the makers of the Constitution intended to make trade, commerce and intercourse fi"ee from raxa1io11 in thar comprehensil'e sense. If thar were so, all laws ol ra.wrio11 relaring to sale a11d purchase of good1· 011 carriage of goods and commodiries, men a11d a11imals, from 011e place lo a11orhe1; hoth inter-State and infra-Srate, would come (' within rhe punieH' ol Article 301 and the proviso to Article 301 (h! would make it necessarv that all Bills or , I me1ul111eur.1· of pre-existi11:J, laws shall have. to g,o Through the gamut prescrihed hv that proviso. 7hat will he putting too great an impedi111e11t to the power of taxation vested i11 the States a11d reduce the States' limited sovereigntv under the Constitution to a 111ere.fiction. 77wt extreme position ha.1-, therefore. ro he rejected as li11SOZl/1d.

15. /11 this crmnection. it is also pertinent to hear ill mind that all taxation is 1101 11ecessari~v an impediment or a restraint in the matter of trade, commerce and intercourse. Instead of heing such impediments or reslraints, they may, 011 the other hand. provide the v.·herewithals to improve di{lerent kinds qf znea11s of transport, for example. in cane growing areas. 1111less there are good ro(l(/.v. fc1cilitrfor tra11sport of sugarcane fi·om .rngarcm1e fields to sugar mills may he whollv lacking or insufficient. In order to make new road> as also ro improve old 011es, cess on the grower ol cane or others illlerested in the /ra11.1port of this commodity has ( 'J to he imposed, and has heen known in some parrs of l11dia to haFe heen imposed at a certain rate per md. or 1011 of' sugarcane tra11sported to sugar factories. Such an imposition is a fax 011 transport ol sugarcane fiwn one place to anothe1; either intra-State or inter-State. ft H

JJNDAL STAINLESS !TD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 223 JT. S. THAKUR, CJl] is the tax thus realised that makes itfeasihlefor opening A ne\\' means of communication or for improving old ones. It cannot. therefore. he said that taxation in eve1y case must mean an impediment or restraint against .fi·ee flow of trade and co111111erce. Similarly, for the facility of passenger.1· ond good1· hy motor transport or by railway, B a s11r('harge 011 m11al fares or freights is levied, or may he levied in fi1t11re. But for such a surcharge, improvement in the means of communication may not he availahle at all. Hence, in my opinion, it is not correct lo characterise a tax 011 movement of goods or passengcr.1· as necessarily connoting an impediment, or c a restraint, in the 11w//er of trade and commerce. That is another .~ood reason in support of the conclusion that taxation is not ordinarily included within the terms of Article 301 of the Constitution. D

16. In my opinion. another verv cogent reason for holding that taxation simpliciter is not within the terms of Article 301 of the Constitution is that the very connotation of taxation is the power of the State to raise money for public purposes by compelling the payment by persons, hoth natural and juristic. of monies earned E or possessed hy them, hy virtue of the facilities and pmtection aff(Jrded by the State. Such burdens or imposts, either direct or indirect, are in the ultimate cmalvsi.1· meant as a contribution hy the citizens or persons residing in the State or dealing with the citizens f of the State, j(1r the support of the Government, with particular reference to their respective abilities to make such contrihutions. Thus public purpose is implicit in every taxation, as such. Therefore, when Part XIII of the Constitution speaks of imposition of reasonable restrictions in puhlic interest. it could not have intended to include taxation within the generic term "reasonable restrictions". This Court has laid it dov.·n in the case of Ramjilal v. Income Tax Office1; Mohindmgarh( 1951 SCR 117 at page 136) (AIR 1951 SC 97 at page 100). that H

224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A imposition and collection of taxes hy authority of law envisaged by Article 265 is outside the scope of the expression .. deprivation of property .. in Article 31 (1) of the Constitution. Reasonahle restrictions as used in Part 111 or Part XJJJ of the Constitution would in most cases he less than total deprivation of property rights. Hence, Part XII dealing with finance etc. as already indicated, has been treated as a Part dealing with the sovereign power of the State to impose taxes, which must always mean imposing burdens on citizens and others, in puhlic interest. If a law is passed hy the Legislature c imposing a tax which in its true nature and effect is meant to impose an impedimellf to thefi"eeflov.• of trade, co111111erce and intercourse, for example, /Jy imposing a high tariff wall, or by preventing imports into or exports out of a State, such a lm1: is outside the significance of taxation, as such, hut assumes the character of a trade harrier which it was the intention of the Constitution- makers to abolish hy Part XI!!. 1/ie objections against the contention that taxation was included within the prohibition contained in Part XIII may thus he s11111111arised: (1) Taxation, as such, alwavs implies that it is in puhlic interest. Hence, it irould he outside particular restrictions, which may he characterised hy the courts as reasonahle and in puh/ic interest. (2) The power is vested in a sovereign State to carry on Government. Our Constitution has laid the foundations of a welfare State, which means very much expanding the scope of the acrivities of Government and administration, thus making it necessarv for the State to impose taxes on a much larger scale and in much v.·ider fields. The legislative entries in the three Lists G referred to ahove empowering the Union Government and the State Governments to impose certain taxations with reference to movement of good~ and passengers would he rendered ineffective, if not otiose, if it were held that taxation simpliciter is within the terms ofArticle

301. (3) If the argument on hehalf of the appellants H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 225

[T. S. THAKUR, CJI] were accepted, many taxes, for example, sales tax by the Union and hy the States, would have to go through the gamut prescrihed in Articles 303 and 304, thus very much detracting from the limited sovereignty of the States, as envisaged hy the Constitution. (4) Laws relating to taxation, ivhich is essentially a legislative fi.111ctio11 of the State, will hecome justiciable and eve1y time a taxation la01: is challenged as unconstitutional, the State will have to satisfj; the courts - a course which will seriously affect the division of powers on which modem constitutions, including ours. are hased. (5) Taxation on movement of good1· and passengers is not c necessarily an impediment.

17. 'J'hat conclusion leads to a discussion of the other extreme position that taxation is wholly out o.f the purview of Article 301. That extreme position is equalzv untenahle in view llf the fact that Article 304 contains, and Article 306, he/ore it was repealed in 1956, contained, reference to taxation for certain purposes mentioned in those Articles. But Article 306, which now stand~ repealed, contained references to tax or duty on the import of goods into one State .fi'om another or on the exports of good1· from one State to another. Such imposts were rea!lv in the nature of impediments to the .fi'ee flow of goods and commodities on account of customs harriers, which it was the intention of Article 301 to abolish. Similar~v. Article 304, while recognising the power of a State J,egislature lo tax good1· imported inter-State, insists that a similar tax is imposed on goods manufactured or produced within the State. 171e Article thus hring.1· out the clear distinction between taxation as such for the purpose of revenue and taxation for pwposes of making discrimination or giving preference, hoth of which are treated hy the Constitution as impediments to free trade and commerce. In other word~. so long as the impost was not in the nature of an impediment to the free .flow of good~ and commodities H

SUPREME C(;URT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A hetwe!'n 011e State a11d a11other, including in this expressio11 Union territories also, its legality >rn.1· not s11hject to an attack hased 011 the provisions of Part Xiii. !J11t that does not mean that State Legislatures derive !heir pm1·er of" taxation hv virtue of ivhat is contained in Article 304. Article 304 onlv lefi intact such pmver ol taxation, hut contained the inhihition that such taxes slw11 not he permitted to hm·e the effect of impeding the .fi"ee flow of good1· and conmwdities." c Sinha, CJ. concluded as follows:

"18 . ..... 7/nrs, m1 a fair construction of the provisions of' Part Xlli, the following propositions emerge: ( 1) trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout the territorv of india are not ahsolutelv free, h11t are suhject ]) to certain powers of legislation hy Parliament or the l,egislature ofa State; (2) thefreedom declared hyArtirle 301 does not mean freedom fi"Oln taxation simplicite1: h11t does 111eanji·eedomfro111 taxatio11 which has the effect of" directly impeding the fi'ee .flow of trade, commerce and intercourse; (3) the ji-eedom e11visaged in Article 301 is s11hjecl to 11011-discriminatorv restriction.\' imposed hv Parliament i11 puhlic interest (Article 302); (4) eve11 dis('rimi11atu1T or preferrntial legislatirm may he made hy Parliament for the purpose of" dealing with an e111e1genc1· like a scarcity ol good\· in any part of India F [Article 303(2)}; (5) reasonable restriction.1· may he imposed hy the Legislawre ol a State in the puhlic interest {Article 304(b}j; (6) 11011-discri111i11atorv taxes may he imposed hy the Legislature of" a State on good1· imported fi'om a11other State or other States, if similar Ci taxes are imposed on good\· produced or manufactured in that State /Article 304(a)j: and lastly (7) restrictions imposed hy existing laws have heen continued, except insofar as the Preside11t 111ay In· order otherwise direct (Arric!e 305). ·· II

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF I-IARYANA 227

[T. S. THAKUR, CJ!]

59. Before we examine the rival submissions, we must also refer to the decision of this Court in Automobile case (supra) which added a new dimension to the legal exposition inAtiabal'i case (supra) by decla1ing that taxes that were compensatory in nature fell outside Part Xlll and could never be treated as ·restrictions offensive to Article 301 of the Constitution. S.K. Das, .I. speaking for the majority explained the concept of compensatory taxes falling outside P~rt XIII in the following words:

"10 ... As the language e111ployed in Article 301 nms unqualified the Court. hearing in mind the fact that that pmvision has to he applied in the working of an orderly c society, has necessarily to add certain qualifications suhject to vi'i1ich alone that freedom may he exercised. This point has heen very lucidly discussed in the dissenting opi11io11 which Fullagar. J. wrote i11 M.cCarter v. Bl'odie (1950) 80 CLR 432 an opinion which was D s11hsta11tiallr approved hy the Privy Council in Hughes and Vale Proprieta1J1 Ld. v. State of New South Wales 1955 AC 241. 171e learned Judge gave several examples to shrnv the disti11ctio11 hetween what was merely permitted reg11la1ion and what irns true i11terference with E fi·eedo111 of trnde a11d commerce. He pointed out that in the 111atter of 1110/or vehicles most countries have legislmion which requires the motor vehicle to he registered and a fee lo he paid on registration. Eve1y motor vehicle must cm-rr lamps of a specified kind in .fi'ont and al the rear and in the hours of darkness these F la111ps must he alight if the vehicle is heing driven on the road. Everv 1110/or vehicle must cany a warning device. such as a horn; it 111ust not be driven at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the pu/Jlic. In certain localities a 1110/or vehicle must not he driven at G more than a certain .1peed. The weight of the load which nw1· he carrier! on a motor vehicle on a puhlic highway is limited. Such examples may he multiplied indefinite~\'. Nohodv douhts that the application of rules like the alwve does not really affect the freedom of trade and H

228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A commerce: mz the contrarv they facilitate the fi'ee flow of' trade and commerce. The reason is that these rules cannot fairlr he said to impose a hurden on a trader or deter himfi·om trading: it would he absurd, for example, to suggest that .fi·eedom of trade is impaired or hindered R hy lmvs which require a motor vehicle to keep to the leli ol the road and not drive in a manner dangerous to the puhlic. fl the word 'fi"ee" in Article 301 means }i·eedom to do whatever one wants to do ", then chaos may he the result; for example, one owner of a motor vehicle may v.·ish to drive 011 the left of the road while c another may wish to drive on the right of the road. If they come _fi-0111 opposite directions, there will he an inevitable clash. Another class of examples relates to making a charge for the use of trading facilities, such as, road1', hridges, aerodromes etc. The collection of a D toll or a tax for the use of a road or .frJr the use of a hridge or .fi:Jr the use of an aerodrome is no harrier or hurden or deterrent to traders ·who, in their ahsence, mav have to take a longer or less convenient or more expensive route. Such compensatory taxes are no hindrance to anyhodr :, freedom so long as they remain E reasonahle; hut they could of course he converted into a hindrance to the freedom ol trade. If the authorities concemed really wanted to hamper anybody'.> trade, they could easilv raise the amoullf of tax or toll to an amount which would he prohihitive or deterrent or create other impediments which instead offacilitating trade and commerce v.:ould hamper them. It is here that the contrast, hetiree11 "freedom" (Articles 301) and ··restrictions" (Articles 302 and 304) clearly appears: that which in reality facilitates trade and commerce is G not a restriction, and that which in reality hampers or hurde11s Trade and commerce is a restriction. It is the reality or suhstance ol the matter that has to be determined. It is not possible a priori to draw a dividing line hetween that ·which would reulzv he a charge for a facility provided and thal which would really he a H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 229

IT. S. THAKUR, CJI] deterrent to a trade; hut the distinction, if it has to be A drawn, is real and clear. For the tax to hecome a prohihited tax it has to he a direct tax the effect of which is to hinder the movement part o{ trade. So long as a tax remains compensatory or regulatory it cannot operate as a hindrance. B xxx xxx xxx

I 4. Afrer carefulZv considering the arguments advanced he/ore us we have come to the conclusion that the narrow interpretation canvassed for on behalf of the majoritv o{ the States cannot be accepted, namely, that c the relevant articles in Part XIII applv only to legislation in respect of the entries relating to trade and commerce in any of the lists of the Seventh Schedule. But we must advert here to one exception which we have already indicated in an earlier part of this judgment. Such D regulatmy measures as do not impede the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse and compensat01y taxes fhr the use of trading facilities are not hit by the fi·eedo111 declared by Article 30 I. They are excluded fi'Oln the purview of the provisions o{ Part XIII of the E Constitution for the simple reason that they do not hamper trade. commerce and intercourse but rather facilitate them.

xxx xxx xxx F I 7. /Ye have, therefr;re, come to the conclusion that neither the 'videst inte1pretation nor the narrow interpretations canvassed'be{ore us are acceptable. The interpretation which was accepted by the majority in the Atiabari Tea Co. case is correct, hut subject to this clarification. Regulatory measures or measures G imposi11g compensato1y taxes for the use of trading facilities do not come within the purview of the restrictio11s contemplated hy Article 301 and such measures 11eed not comply with the requirements of the proviso to Article 304(/J) of the Constitution. " H

2:10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A 60. Hidayatullah. J. in his dissentingjudgment, however. took the view that even when a tax may be compensatory in character it would be a valid levy only it' it goes through the process of presidential assent i11 terms of Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India and the proviso thereto. The following passage in this regard is relevant: 8

"12 5. 77iat a tax is a restriction when it is placed upon a trnde direct!)' a11d immediatezv may he admitted. But there is a difference between a tax n·hich hurde11s a trnder i11 !his 111a1111er and a tax, which heing general, c is paid hy trades111e11 in common with others. The first is a levv fi'Om the trade hy reason of its heing trade, the other is leviedfi·om all, a11d tradesmen pay it hecause everyone has to pay it. There is a viral dZ(fi:re11ce between the tivo, viewed .fi-0111 the angle of.freedom of J) /rade and commerce. The first is an impost on trade as such, and may he said to restrict it: the second may hurden the tradn: hut it is not a "restriction" of the trnclc. To refi.1.1·r:' to draw ,1·11ch a distinction would mean that there is no faxing ent1:r in Lists I and JI which is not suhject to Articles 301 and 304, however general the tax and hmvever non-discriminatorv its imposition. To hring all the taxes within the reach of'Article 301 and thus lo hring them also within the reach of Article 304 is to overlook the concept o/a Federation, ;vhich al!OH'S fi'eedom of action to the States, suhjecl, h01veve1: to the F needs of the unity of India. Just as unity cannot he al!o\·Fed to he fi'ittered away hy insular action rhe existence of separate States is 1101 to he sacrificed hy a .fi1sion heyond what the Constitution envisages. No dou/Jr. Parr XIII ensures economic unitv to India and combines the .federating Slates into the larger State ca!!ed India. 'f71e Consti111tio11 also permits independent powers of' wxatirm. What the Constitution does not permit is thar trade. commerce and intercourse should he rendered "unlree ". Trade and commerce remain free even ·when general taxes are paid hy tradesmen in H

JINDAL STAINLESS LfD. Y. STATE or HARYANA 231 IT. S. THAKUR, CJJ] common ·with 11011-tradesmen. The question ivhether a A tax off'e11d1· Part )(]ff can 011lv arise when it seeks to tax trade, commerce and intercourse. Support for the conlrarv propositirm is not to he found in 1936 AC 578 James v. Co111111011wealth. The Privy Council in James v. Cmmnomi·ealth did 11ot lay down: B "Even• step in the series of operations which constitutes particular transaction is an act of trade, a11d contml under the Stale law of any of these steps 11111st he an i11terfere11ce with ifs fi'eedom as trade" (p.629) c This passage represent.1· the view held in McArthur '.I· case 192() (28) CLR 530. That case was disapproved at p. 631. We have alreadv dealt with this view at some length. D J26. Fhus, taxation laws and taxes must he divided into two kinds. Taxes which are general and for revenue purposes which fc1ll on those engaged in trade, co111111erce and intercourse in the same way as they fall 011 others not so engaged cannot normally he ·within the reach of Part Xiii. A motor transport owner cannot E claim that he will not pay properly tax in respect of his garage h11ildi11g.1· or electricitv tax for the electricity he com11111e.1· i11 lighting them, or income tax on his profits. Part XIJJ has nothing to do tvith such taxes even though they fal! upon tradesmen. F xx xxx xxx xxx l 32. !11 our judgment. the first tesr to appl)I is what is the ohject and scope of the legislation'! A regulation of' Trade and commerce may achieve some p11h!ic purpose G ·which affecTs Trade and commerce incidentally hut without impairing thefi'eedom. Sometimes, however, the regulation itself' - . mm· . amount lo a resTriction, and if. such a stage is reached. then under our Constitution the restriction must he reaso11ah11• in the puhlic interest, and H

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A the President :1· prior sanction must be ohtained, if the lmv i111posi11g such restriction is made by the State J"egislature, ff; howeve1; it does not reach the stage of restriction of trade and remains only a regulation incidentallv touchinr; trade and commerce, the regularion is outside the operation of Articles 301 and B

304. ft is 011 this ground that laivs prescribing the rule of the road and like provisions alreaczv referred to as well as a regulation that the height to which truck\- may he loaded must he such as not to endanger the overhead hrid::;es or wires, do not hm·e to go before the President. c since they do not affect the freedom guaranteed. The ohject of such laws cannot he regarded as a restriction of trade and commerce. Freedom in Article 301 does not mean anarchy Similarlv, a demand for a tax .fi"om traders in common with others is not a restriction of ]) their right to cany on trade and commerce. A system of licensing of motor vehicles is a regulation, but does not impair the fi'eedom of trade and commerce unless the licensing is made to depend upon arbitrary discretion of the licensing authorit_v. Similarly, a fee for administrative purposes may also he viewed as a part E of regulation. Such licensing and.fees fall outside Article 301, hecause they cannot he 1·iewed as restrictions, and therefiire do not need to he processed under Article 304. Such regulations are designed to give equal opportuni(V to evervone, suhiect to a certain standard. The ohject r heing a puhlic ohject, such regulations cannot be questioned unless they amount to restrictions. A tax, however, which is made the condition precedent of the right to enter upon and carry on business af all is a ve1T different mattei: It is a restriction on the right to

G carrv 011 trade and commerce, and the restriction is released on the payment of the tax, ·which is the price of such release. It is from this point of view that the impugned provisions in this case must he examined. "

JINDAL STAINLESS ITD. v. STAI'E or HARYANA 233 IT. S. THAKUR, CJI]

61. Subbarao J. as His Lordship then was, agreed with the majority A view but added the following passage to the same:

"3 7. The next question is, what is the content of the concept offi'eedo111'! The word ''.fi'eedom" is not capable B o{ precise definition, hut it can be stated what would i11;{ri11ge or detract fi·om the said freedom. Before a particular law can he said to i1?fringe the said.freedom, it must he ascertained whether the impugned provision operates as a restrictio11 impeding the free movement of trade or only as a regulation facilitating the same. c Restrictions ohstruct the fi·eedom, whereas regulations promote it. Police regulations, though they may superficially appear to restrict thefreedom of movement, in fact provide the necessarv conditions for the fi'ee movement. Reg11la1io12.1· such as provision for lighting, speed, good condilion o{ vehicles, limings, rule o{ the road and similar others, reallv facilitate the .freedom of movement rather than retard it. So too, licensing system with compensatorv fees would not be restrictions but regulatory provisions: for without it, the necessary lines of communication, such as roadv, water-ways and air- ways, cannot effectivezy be maintained and the fi·eedom declared mav in practice turn out to be an empty one. So too, regulations providing for necessary services to enable the fi·ee movement o{ traffic, whether charged or not, cannot also be ·described as restrictions r impeding the freedom. To say all these is not to say that everv provision couched in the form of regulation hut in effecl and suhstance a restriction can pass off as a pen11issihle regulation. ft is for the Court in a given case to decide whether a provision purporting to G regulate trade is in fact a restriction on freedom. ff it he a colourable exercise of power and the regulatmy provision in fact is a restriction, unless the said provision is one of the permissihle restrictions under the succeeding articles, it would be struck down. This H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C. R.

A view is co11siste/1/ with the pri11cipl.e.1· laid down hv the A111·1rcilian High Court and the Privv Council in the context of inte1pre!atio11 of the words "ahsol11telv free" in Section <)] of . the Commonwealth of . Australia Constitution ,·lei, which is more emphatic than the irord B "fi·ee" in drtic!e 301 of our Constitution.

XXX .\'XX XXX

39. But the more diflicu!t question is, what does the 'vvord "restrictions" mean in /lrticle 302! 77ie dictionw)' 1JJeani11g of' the word "restrict" is "to confine, hound, c limit". Therefi;re, am· limitation placed upon thefi'eedom is a restriction 011 that fi·eedom. But the !imitation must he real, direct and immediate, hut not fc111cif11!, indirect or remote. Jn !his co11text, the principles evolved hr . lmerican and Australian decisions in their a/fempt 10 D reconcile the commerce power and the State police p011·er or !he .fl·eedom of' commerce and the Commo11wea!th power to make laws affecting that .fi·eedom can 11sefitl/y he i11voked with suitable modification.1· a11d adjustme11ts. Ol all the doctri11e.1· enJlved, i11 my view. the doctrine of "direct and imJ11ediate effect" on the .fi'eedom would he a reasonah!e solvent to the dif(icu!t situation that might arise 1111der our Constitution. If a !a11.: whatever may ha1'e been its source, directly and iJ11111ediatelv affects the ji-ce movement of trade, it 11•ould he restrictio11 on the saidfi·eedom. But a la\\' which may have only indirect and remote reperc11ssion.1· 011 the saidfi·eedom cannor he co11sidered to he a restriclion 011 it. Taking the illustration from taxatio11 law. a law mav impose a tax on the movement of goods or persons hy a motor-vehicle; it directly G opera1es a.1· a restrictio11 011 the free movement of trade, except when it is compensatorv or regulatm:v. On the other hand, a law may tax a vehicle as property, or the garage 11·herei11 the vehicle usedfor conveya11ce is kept. The said law mm· have indirect reperc11ssio11 011 the nwvement, hut The said law is not 011e directlv imposing H

JINDAL STAINLESS LrD. v. STATE Of HARYANA 235

[T. S. THAKUR, C.11] restnct10111· 011 the fi'ee movement. Jn this context, two difficulties may have to he faced: .firstly, though a law purporting to il/lpose a tax 011 a property or a 111otor- vehic/e, as the case may he, may in fact and in reality i111pose a la.Y on the 111ovement itself;- second(v. a law mm• not he on the movement o{trade, hut 011 the property itself. hut !he /Jurden may he so high thal it may indirectlv a/feel the fi'ee flow ol !rade. In the former case. the court may have to scrutinize the provisions ol a particular statute to ascertain whe!her the tax is 011 the 11101·eme11t. fl the provisions disclose a tax on the mm·el/lenl, it 1vill he a restriction within the meaning ol c Article 302. In the lat/er case, il the provisions show that the tax is 011 propertJ', the reasonableness of the lax may have to he tested against the provisions ofArticle 19 of the Constitution. The question whether a law imposes a restriction or not depends on the question D 11)1elher the said law imposes directly and immediatelv a limilan. 1n 011 the fi'eedom of 111ovement of lrade. If it does, the c:xtent of the impediment relates to the question ol degree rather than to the nature of it. If it is a restriction, it must satisfj· the conditions laid down 111 E Article 302 of the Constitution.

xxx xxx xxx

46. The foregoing discussion may he summarized in the following propositions: ( 1) Article 301 declares a right o(fi·ee movement ol trade without any obstructions hy f way of harriers, inter-State or intra-State, or other impediment.1· operating as such harriers. (2) The said ji·eedom is not impeded, but, 011 the other ha11d. promoted, hy reguhitions creating conditions for the fi'ee movement ol trade, such as, police regulations, provision G /(Jr services. maintenance of roads. provision for aerodromes, wharfi· etc., with or without compensation. ( 3) Parliament mm• hy !mt· impose restrictions on such fi'eedom i11 the puh!ic interest: and the said law can he made hy virtue ol anv entry with respect whereof H

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A Parliament has power to make a lm1-'. (4) The State also, in exercise of its legislative powo; may impose similar restrictions, suhject lo the two conditions laid down in Article 304(h) and subject to the provi.1·0 mentioned therein. (5) Neither Parliament nor the State Legislature B can make a lcrw giving preference to one Stale over another or making discrimination hetween one State and another, hy virtue of any entry in the Lists, inff"inging the saidf;·eedom. (6) 7/1is han is lifted in the case ol Parliament j(1r the purpose of dealing with situatio11s arising out of scarci(y of goods in any part c ol the terrifOI)' of India and also in the case ol a Stale under Article 304(/J), subject to the conditio11s mentioned therein. And (7) the State can impose a 11011- discriminato1:v tax on good1· imported.fiwn other States or the Unio11 territory to which similar goods manuf"actured or produced in that Stale· are subject. "

62. The net effect of the decision in Automobile case (supra) is th<it taxes, if the same are compensatory in character, do not offend the guarantee of free trade, commerce and intercourse under Article 301 of the Constitution. The further question whether the compensatory character of a tax has to be determined by reference to the direct and substantial benefits/ facilities provided by the State to the tax payer was ex;imined and answered in the affirmative in Jindal Stainless Steel case (supra), where this Court while overruling the decisions in r Bhagatram and Bihm· Chamber of Commerce cases (supra) declared that it is not just a remote benefit to the tax payer but only a direct and substantial benefit that would justify levy of compensatory taxes without offending A1iicle 301 of the Constitution oflndia. Speaking for the Comi, Kapadia, J. observed: G

"49. The concepl of compensatory taxes was propounded in Automobile Transport in which compensatorv taxes were equated with regulatmy taxes. In that case, a working test for deciding whether a tax H

,NDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 237 [T. S. THAKUR, CJI] is compeusatmy or not was laid down. In that judgment, it was observed that oi1e has to enquire whether the trade as a class is having the use of certain facilities for the heller conduct ol the trade/business. This working test remains unaltered even today.

50. As stated ahove, in the post 1995 era, the said working test pmpounded in Automohile 1l·amport stood disrupted when i11 Bhagatram case, a Bench al three Judges enunciated the test ol "some connection'·' saying that even if' there is some link between the tax a11d the facilities exte11ded to the trade directly or indirectly, the c levy cannot he impugned as invalid. Jn our view, this test of "some .connection" enunciated in Bhagatram case is not 011/y contrary to the working test propounded in Automohile Transport case hut it obliterates the very has is of' compensatory tax. We may reiterate that when D a tax is imposed in the regulation or as a part of regulatmy measure the controlling factor of the le1~y shifis fr'om burden to reimbursement/recompense. The vvorking test propounded hy a Bench ol seven Judges in Automobile Transport and the test of "some co11nection " enunciated by a Bench of three Judges in E Bhagatram case cannot stand together. Therefore, in our view, the test of' "some connection " as propounded in Bhagatram case is not applicable to the concept ol compensatory tax and accordingly to that extent, the judgments of' this Court in Bhagatram Rajeevkumar v. F CST and State of' Bihar v. Bihar Chamber of Commerce stand overruled.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

52. Jn our opinion. the doubt expressed by the referring G Bench about the correctness of the decision in Bhagatram case followed by the judgment in Bihar Chamber of Commerce was well founded.

53. We reiterate that the doctrine of "direct and H

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A immediate effect·· of the impugned law on trade and commerce under Article 301 as propounded in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assa111 and the working test enunciated in Automobile 11-cmsport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan for deciding whether a tax is B compensatory or not vide para 19 of the Report (AlR), will col7finue to apply and the test of "'some connection" indicated in para 8 (of SCC) of the judgment in Bhagatram Rajeevkumar v. CST and followed in State of Bihm· v. Bihar Chamher of Commerce is, in our opi11ion, not good law. Accordingly, the constitutio11al c validity of various local enactments which are the suhject-matters o.f pending appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions will now he listed for being disposed of in the light of this judg111e11t. "

63. The legal position that today holds the field in light of the above is that compensatory taxes would fall outside Part Xlll of the Constitution only if tax payers receive benefits and facilities commensurate to the levy. Any and every benefit howsoever remote or distant, would not save the levy from an attack on the ground of violation of Article 30 I. Having said that we must mention to the credit of the learned counsel for the dealers/assessees that except a feeble attempt made by Mr.A.K. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for Sony India Pvt. I .td. and Mr. Bagaria, learned counsel appearing for Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) the rest of the counsel fairly accepted that r there was no constitutional or juristic basis for the Compensatory Tax Theory propounded by the majority judgment in Automobile Tramport case (supra). Mr. Salve, who led the team oflawyers appearing for the dealers/assessees also did not support the compensatory tax theory propounded in Automobile case (supra). Mr. Rohatgi, leamedAttomey General for India and M/s. Rakesh and Dinesh Dwivedi who appeared G for some of the States also argued that the Compensato1y Tax Theory has no basis whatsoever and that the same ought to be abandoned not only because of lack of any juristic support but also because of the problems that beset the application of the said theory in practice. It may, in the light of the concessions made at the Bar, have become unnecessaiy I-!

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 239 lT. S. THAKUR, CJI] for us to deal with this aspect at any length but since Mis. Ganguly and A Bagaria have not fully subscribed to the views urged by their colleagues appearing for the dealers, we are left with no option but to squarely deal with the question whether the Compensatory Tax Theory is indeed sustainable. Three distinct aspects touching the question need be noticed straightaway. The first and the foremost of these aspects is that the B concept ofcompensatory taxes is not recognised by the Constitution. A tax is a compulsory exa~tion of money for general public good and is defined as under by Thomas M Cooley in his book 11ie Law of Taxation at page 61(Clark A. Nichols ed., 411' ed. 1924) as:

c "1bxe.1· are the enforced proportional colltributions fi·om persons and property, levied by the state by virtue of its sovereignty for the support of government and for all puhlic need~. This definition of taxes, often referred to as "Cooley:~ definition," has heen quoted and D endorsed, or approved, expressly or otherwise, by many different courts. While this definition of taxes characterizes them as 'contributions', other definitions refer to them as 'imposts', 'duty or impost', 'charges', 'lmrdens ', or 'exactions', ; hut these variations in phraseology are of no practical importance. " E xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

F The term is defined also in The Major Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar - Vol. 6 - 41,, Edition - Page Nos.6678 and 6679 in the following words:

The term "tax" and "taxes'' have been defined as a G rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property ol a citizen by government for the use of the nation or state; burdens or charges imposed by the legislative power upon persons or proper~v to raise money for pu/Jlic purposes, and the enforced proportional H

240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 10 S.C.R.

A contrihutio11 o{persons and propertv levied hy authority (<l the state for the support of government a11d for all puhlic need\'. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx B Taxes are puhlic hurdens. of·- which everv. individual may . he compelled to hear his part, and that in proportion to the extent of protection he receives or the amount of property held hy him, as the v.:il/ of the Legislature may direct. The prxwer of taxation is said to. he an incident c of sovereignt}; a11d co-extensive with that of which it is incident. "

Blackwell on Tax Titles as cited in 'Tata Iron & Steel Co. D Ltd. v. State of Bilwr, AIR 1991 Patna 75, 81 has the following to say about taxes: 'Taxes are defined to he burdens or charges imposed hy the legislatil'e power upon persons or property to raise money .fhr public purposes. ' Black'.s Law Dictionary, 7'" Edn., P. 1469 defines tax as under: "A 111onetm); charge imposed hy govern111e11t on persons, e11tities or property to yield puhlic revenue," If taxes are eventually meant to serve larger public good and for F running the governmental machinery and providing to the people the facilities essential for civilized llving, there is no question of a tax being non-compensatory in character in the broader sense.

64. Secondly, because the concept of compensatory tax obliterates the distinction between a tax and a fee. The essential difference between G a tax and a fee is that while a tax has no element of quid pro quo, a fee without that element cannot be validly levied. The difference between a tax and the fee has been examined and elaborated in a long line of decisions of this Court. (See: Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (AIR 1954 SC 282), Mahant Sri Jagamwth Ramanuj 1-1

JINDAL STAINLESS Ll'D. v. STATE OF HARYANA 241

[T. S. THAKUR, CJI]

Das & Am: v. State of Orissa & Am: (AIR 1954 SC 400), The A /Ji11gir-Ra111pur Coal Co. Ltd. 1•. State of Orissa (AIR 1961 SC 459), Corporation of Calcuita and am: v. Liberty Cinema (AIR 1965 SC 1107), Kewal Kris/ma Puri and Am: v. State of Punjab (1980) 1 sec 416, Kris/ti Upaj Mandi Samiti and Ors. v. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. (1995) l SCC 655), State of Gujarat and Am: v. B Akhil G1~jarat Pravasi V.S. Malwmendal (2004) 5 sec 155: State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. & ors. (2004) 10 SCC 201.

65. Thirdly, and lastly, the concept ofCompe11satory taxes being outside Part Xlll, is difficult to apply in actual practice. Experience in c the present batch of cases has amply demonstrated that difficulty. Most of the legislations enacted by the States in these cases have described the entry tax levied under the same to be compensatory in character. This may have been done to take the levy outside the mischief of Article 301 of the Constitution. The question however is whether tax amount collected in terms of the said legislation is really used by the State for the D purpose of providing or maintaining services and benefits to the tax payers and whether the Courts can follow the money trail to determine whether the State concerned has actually used the amount for the avowed purpose underlying the legislation. This process is fraught with serious difficulties, a fact that was not disputed by learned Counsel for the assessees/dealers. E Actual application of the Compensatory Tax Theory, therefore, runs into difficulties to an extent that the theory at some stage breaks down. M/ s. Salve, Rohatgi and Dwivedi were in that view perfectly justified in submitting that the Compensatory Tax The01y was legally unsupportable and deserved to be abandoned. We have no hesitation in agreeing with F that submission, the arguments of M/s. Gangl1ly and Bagaria to the contrary notwithstanding.

66. With the Compensatory Tax Theory no longer found acceptable, we are left with only two competing view points, one expressed by Gajendragadkar, J. and the other by B.P. Sinha, CJ. Which G one is the conect view is the critical question that falls for our detem1ination having regard to the Constitutional scheme and the language employed in Articles 301 to 307 to which we must now turn for a closer look.

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A Article 30 I is as under: ".Wl. Freedom of trade, commerce and intcrcourse.- Suhject ro the other provisions of this Part, trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territorJ' of India shall he free" B A plain reading of the above would show that freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse is by no means absolute, the same being subject to the other provisions of Part Xlll of the Constitution. Amongst those provisions are Articles 302, 303 and 304 which have a direct bearing on the nature and the extent of restrictions subject to which only is the c right to freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse refeJTed to in Article 30 I exercisable. Article 302 reads thus:

"302. Power of Parliament to impose restrictions 011 trade, commerce and intercourse.- Parlialnent may hy D lcni· impose s11ch restrictions on the freedom of trade. commerce or intercourse hetween one State and another or within any part of the territory of India as may he req11ired in the puhlic interest. "

67. The above leaves no manner of doubt that Parliament is empowered to impose such restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse between one State and another or within any part of the territory of India as may be required in public interest. Reading Articles 30 I and 302 together, it is evident, that freedom of trade, r commerce and intercourse is subject to restrictions which Parliament may by law impose in public interest. The absolute character of the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse is thus lost by reason of Article 302 itself empowering Parliament to impose such restrictions as it may consider necessary in public interest. Article 303, in tum, places G restrictions on the legislative powers of the Parliament and of the States, when it says : "303. Restrictions on the legislative powers ofthe Union and of the States with regard to trade and commerce.- (!) Notwithstanding anythinK in article 302, neither H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 243

IT. S. THAKUR, CJI]

Parliame11t nor the Legislature of a State shall have A poi1·er to make any lmv giving, or authorising the giving of. any preference to one State over anothe1; or making, or authorisi11g the making of; any discrimination between one State a11d another, hy virtue of any entry relating to trade and commerce in any of the Lists in the B Seventh Schedule.

(2) Nothing in clause (I) shall prevent Parliament from making any law giving, or authorising the giving of. any preference or making, or authorising the making of," any discrimination if it is declared by such law that c it is necesswy to do so f(Jr the pwpose of dealing with a situation arising fi'om scarcity of good~ in any part of the territory or 111dia. ..

68. A carefol reading of the above would show that notwithstanding the power vested in the Parliament under Article 302, it shall not make any law giving, or authorising the giving of any preference to one State over another, or making, or authorising the making of, any discrimination between one State and another, by virtue of any entry relating to trade and commerce in any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule. From Clause E (2) of Article 303 (supra) it is manifest that the restriction on the power vested in Parliament in terms of Clause (1) of Article 303 shall not extend to Parliament making any law with a vic:w to giving or authorising the giving ot~ any preference or making, or authorising the making of, any discrimination if it is declared by such law that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of dealing with a situation arising out of scarcity. A conjoint reading of Clauses ( 1) and (2) of Article 303 would thus make it clear that while Parliament/ Legislature of a State shall have no power to make a law imposing restriction on trade, commerce and intercourse, by giving or authorizing the giving of any preference to one State over the other. such limitation on the legislative power of Parliament shall not extend to giving of any preference or making or authorizing any discrimination if it is declared by law that a situation has arisen out of scarcity of goods that makes it necessary to do so. In other words, while the Parliament may impose restrictions in public interest under H

244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016) 10 S.C.R.

A A11icle 302, the restriction so imposed shall not be in the nature of giving preference or discrimination between one State or the other except when the law declares that scarcity of goods in any part of India necessitates such preference or discrimination.

69. That brings us to Article 304 of the Constitution which too like R Articles 302 and 303 deals with restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. lt reads:

''304. Restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse among States.-Notwithstanding anything in Article 301 c or Article 303, the Legislature of a State mew by law- (a) impose on good1· imported.from other States or the Union territories any tax to which similar goods 11wnuf(1ctured or produced in that State are suhject, so, however. as not to discriminate hetween goods so [) imported and good1· so manufactured or produced; and (h) impose such reasonable restriction.1· on the ,fi-eedom of' trade. commerce or intercourse with or within that State as nwy he required in the puhlic interest: Provided that no Bill or amendment for the purposes of clause E (h) shall he introduced or moved in the Legislature of a State without the previous sanction of' the President."

The Article starts with a "non-ohstante" clause which has been the subject matter of forensic debates in several cases. We do not for F the present propose to address the effect of the non-ohstante clause at this stage or the interplay between the expression "subject to" appearing in Article 301 and the non obstante clause in Article 304. We shall tum to that aspect a little later. What we wish to examine is whether A11icle 304(a) treats taxes as a 1:estriction so that any such levy may fall foul of G A11icle 301. The answer to that question, we say without any hesitation is in the negative. Article 304(a) far from treating taxes as a restriction per se, specifically recognises the State legislature's power to impose the same on goods imported from other States or Union Territories. The expression "the legislature of a State may by law impose on goods imported from other States (or Union Territories) any tax" are much too H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 245

IT. S. THAKUR, CJl] clear and specific to be capable of any equivocation or confusion. It is A true that the source of power available to the State legislature to levy a tax is found in Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution but, the availability of such power for taxing goods imported from other States or Union Territories is clearly recognised by Article 304 (a). The expression 'may hy law impose' is certainly not a restriction on the power to tax. That B does not, however, mean that the power to tax goods imported from other States or Union Territories is unqualified or unrestricted. There are, in our opinion, two restrictions on that power. The words "to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that State are subject" impose the first restriction on the power of the State legislature to levy any such tax. These words would imply that a tax on imp01t of goods from other c States will be justified only if similar goods manufactured or produced in the State are also taxed. The second restriction comes from the expression "so. howeve1; as not to discriminate between goods so imported and goods so nwmifactured or produced". The State legislature cannot in the matter of levying taxes discriminate between D goods imported from other States and those manufactured or produced within the State levying such a tax. The net effect of Article 304 (a) therefore is that while levy of taxes on goods imported from others State and Union territories is clearly recognised as Constitutionally pennissible, the exercise of such power is subject to the two restrictive conditions E refe1Ted to above. That does not however detract from the proposition that levy of taxes on goods imported from other States is constitutionally permissible so long as the State legislatures abide by the limitations placed on the exercise of that power. To put it differently, levy of taxes on import of goods from other States is not by itself an impediment under the scheme of Part Xlll or A1ticle 30 I appearing therein. F

70. That brings us to the question whether Clauses (a) and (b) have to be read conjunctively. It was contended on behalf of the dealers/ assessees that even when a tax in tenns of Article 304 (a) is not forbidden being non-discriminatory, it may still constitute a restriction under Clause (b) thereof. The argument is that just because a tax passes muster G under Clause (a) of A1ticle 304 being non-discriminatory does not mean that the levy of such a tax is not a restriction on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. It was contended that while a discriminatory tax must be treated as a restriction by itself the reasonableness of a non- discriminatory tax will have to be seen by the President in tenns of the H

246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS !2016110 S.C.R.

A Provjso to Clause (b ). It was argued that Article 304(a) does not exhaust the universe in so far as levy of taxes is concerned for even when the law complies with the requirement of Clause (a), it may fail to pass the test of reasonableness and of public interest under Clause (b) in which event the President may decline the sanction for introduction of any Bill aimed at levying such a tax. B

71. There is, in our opinion, no merit in any of the contentions noted above. Clauses (a) and (b) of A11icle 304 deal with two distinct subjects and must, therefore, be understood to be independent of each other. While Clause (a) deals entirely with imposition of taxes on goods impo1ted from other States, Clause (b) deals with imposition of reasonable c restriction in public interest. It is trite that levy of a tax in tenns of Article 304(a) may or may not be accompanied by the imposition of any resh·iction whether reasonable or unreasonable. There is, in our opinion, no rationale in the contention that the legislature of a State cannot levy a tax without imposing one or more reasonable restrictions or that a law that is simply D imposing restrictions in terms of Clause (b) to Article 304 must be accompanied by the levy ofa tax on the impo11 of goods. The use of the word 'and' between clauses (a) and (b) does not adinit ofan interpretation that may impose an obligation upon the legislature to necessarily impose a tax and a restriction together. The Jaw may simply impose a tax without any restriction reasonable or otherwise or it may simply impose a reasonable restriction in public interest without imposing any tax whatsoever. It may also levy a tax and impose such reasonable restriction as may be considered necessary in public interest. All the three situations are fully covered and permissible under Article 304 in view of the phraseology used therein. The word 'and' can mean 'or' as well as F 'and' depending upon the context in which the law enacted by the legislature uses the same. Suffice it to say that levy of taxes do not constitute a restriction under Part XIII except in cases where the same are discriminatory in nature. Once Article 304 (a) is understood in that fashion, Clause (b) dealing with reasonable restrictions must necessarily G apply to restrictions other than those by way of taxes. It follows that for levy of taxes prior Presidential sanction in terms of the proviso under Article 304(b) will be wholly unnecessary. This view is reinforced on the plain language of proviso to Article 304(b ), which is limited to law relating to reasonable restrictions referred to in clause (b ). H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 247

IT. S. THAKUR, CJI]

72. The sum total of what we have said above regarding Articles A 301, 302, 303 & 304 may be summarized as under: I. freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse in terms of Article 301 is not absolute but is subject to the Provisions of Part XUI. B

2. Article 302 which appears in Part Xlll empowers the Parliament to impose restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse in public interest.

3. The restrictions which Parliament may impose in te1111s of Article 302 cannot however give any preference to one State over another by virtue of any entry relating to c trade and commerce in any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule.

4. The restriction that the Parliament may impose in tenns of Article 302 may extend to giving of preference or D pe1111itting discrimination between one State over another only if Parliament by law declares that a situation arising· out of scarcity of goods wanants such discrimination or preference.

5. A1ticle 304(a) recognizes the availability of the power to impose taxes on goods impo1ted from other States, the legislative power to do so being found in A1ticles 245 and 246 of the Constitution.

6. Such power to levy taxes is however subject to the condition that similar goods manufactured or produced in the State levying the tax are also subjected to tax and that there is no discrimination on that account bet\veen goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced.

7. The limitation on the power to levy taxes is entirely covered by Clause (a) of Article 304 which exhausts the universe in so far as the State legislature's power to levy of taxes is concerned.

8. Resultantly a discriminatory tax on the import of goods from other States alone will work as an impediment on H

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I 0 S.C.R.

A free trade, commerce and intercourse within the meaning of Atiicle 301.

9. Reasonable restrictions in public interest referred to in Clause (b) of Article 304 do not comprehend levy of taxes as a restriction especially when taxes are presumed B to be both reasonable and in public interest.

73. The inferences enumerated above are based on a textual interpretation of the provisions of Article :lO l to Article 304. An interpretation which is both textual and contextual has always been found to be more acceptable. That is so because it is only when both the text c and the context are kept in view that the statutory provisions can be best understood. An inte1vretation that makes the textual match the contextual meaning of the provision is preferred by Courts over one that prefers one at the cost of the other.

74. In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance D and Investment Co. Ltd. (1987) I SCC 424 this Court pithily summed up the law on the subject in the following words:

"33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. 7/1ev are the has is of inte17Jretatio11. One may E we!l say if the text is the texture, context is what gives . the colour. Neither can he ignored. Both are important. The i11te1pretatio11 is best which. makes the textual interpretation match the contextual... .. . . .. "

75. We may also refer to the following passage of Co11stit11tio11a/ Law of India (4' 11 Edition) by H.M. Seervai where the distinguished author has adverted to the golden rule of interpretation applicable to Constitutional provisions in the following words: G "2.12. The golden rule of interpretation is that words should he read in their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning subject to the rider that in construing word1· in a Constitution conferring legislative H

JINDAL STAINLESS lTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 249 IT. S. THAKUR, CJl] power the most liheral constructio11 should be put upon A the word~ so tlwi they may have effect in their widest amplitude. "

76. Let us then see whether the textual interpretation placed on B Articles 30 I to 304 matches the contextual. The contextual interpretation of Part XllT must, out of necessity, start with the historical perspective of that Part. We have with great advantage extracted in the earlier part of this Judgment the historical backdrop as set out in the decisions of this Court both in Atiabari and Automobile cases (supra). While it is unnecessary to recall the said passages over again, we need to remember c that Part Xlll had a historical precursor in the form of Section 297 of the Government of India Act, 1935 that governed what was then called the British India comprising the territory of India subject to British Rule. The rest of the territories were at that time Princely States who claimed sovereign rights within the limitations imposed by the paramount power. D The power to levy taxes was one such power wielded by the Princely States which led to erection of customs barriers impeding the flow of trade, commerce and intercourse. Section 297 aimed at removing such trade barriers. It provided for a prohibition against enactment of any law or taking of any executive action by the provincial legislature that restricted the entry into or export from the province goods of any class or description.

77. More importantly, in terms of clause (b) of Section 297(1) of Government of India Act, 1935 no provincial legislature or Government could impose any tax, cess, toll or due which discriminated between goods manufactured or produced in the provinces and goods not so manufactured or produced or between goods manufactured or produced outside the province discriminated between goods manufactured or produced in one locality and similar goods manufactured or produced in another locality. With India attaining its freedom, Part Xlll of the Constitution adopted by it, was aimed at bringing about economic unity. G The object underlying Part Xlll was to make movement and exchange of goods free throughout the territory of India. This was achieved by Aiiicle 30 I to Article 304 adopting substantially the scheme underlying the 1935 Act. The only difference between the said provisions and Section 297 of the 1935 Act was that the principles enunciated in the H

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] l 0 S.C.R.

A latter were extended to the Union Government and the Union Parliament and to the territory which had after merger become a part of India. Notably, the essence of the freedom of trade commerce and intercourse as recognized in the 1935 Act and in the Constitution under Part Xlll remained the same. It was for that reason that Justice Venkatarama 8 Iyer had in M.P.V. Sunderaramier's case (Supra) observed and if we may say so rightly that the Constitution of India was not written on a tabula rasa. The common feature which the two provisions share is that the provincial legislature's power to impose taxes is recognized subject only to the limitation that there is no discrimination between goods manufactured or produced within the Province or State vis-a-vis those c imported from outside. InAtiabari's case (supra), the majority speaking through Gajendragadkar, J. noticed the co-relation between Section 297 of 1935 Act, and Article 30 l of the Constitution oflndia but concluded that Article 30 I did not simply adopt Section 297 of the 1935 Act but widened and enriched the same in content. The Court did not, however, elaborate as to how much richer and wider did Attic le 30 I make the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse then what was envisaged under Section 297. The Court said:

"-12 . ......... That is why we are inclined lo hold that the broad and unambiguous words used i11 Article 301 are intended lo emphasize that the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed was richer and wider in content than was the case under Section 297; how much wider and how much richer can be determined only on a fair and reasonable construction o[Article 301 read along with the rest o{lhe articles in PartX!ll In our opinion therefore, the argument that lax laws are outside Part XIII cannot be accepted. " (emphasis supplied) G

78. We have with great respect to the distinguished Judges failed to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the above view. The argument that Article 30 I had enriched and widened the content of trade, commerce and intercourse beyond what is evident from a comparison of the language H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 251

IT. S. THAKUR, CH] between the two provisions namely (a) extending the prohibition against A dis~rimination to the Union Government and the Parliament and (b) making the provision applicable to the territory oflndia as defined by the Constitution, has not impressed us. The textual interpretation placed by us upon Articles 301-304 instead gets considerable support from the contextual and the historical perspective of Part XIII. B

79. We may now turn to yet another contextual feature that has a bearing on the true and correct interpretation of Part Xlll namely the sovereign character of the power to tax available to the State legislature. lt is now fairly well settled that the Constitutionally vested power to levy tax can be regulated or controlled only by specific Constitutional c limitations, if any. We have in the earlier part of this judgment elaborated how the power to levy taxes is a sovereign power with several limitations specifically stipulated by the Constitution itself. We have also explained at some length how legislative competence of the State legislatures can be circumscribed only by express provisions of the Constitution and unless there is an express limitation on the plenary taxing power of the States, D there is no other fetter on the exercise of that power.

80. Applying the above principle to the case at hand, we do not see any specific limitation on the State's power to levy taxes on the import of goods from other States except the one refe1Ted to in Article 304(a) of the Constitution. That limitation we have sufficiently explained E is confined to levy of discriminatory taxes within the comprehension of Article 304(a). So long as taxes are non-discriminatory and, therefore, consistent withAlticle 304(a), there is no limitation leave alone any express limitation on the States' legislative power to levy any tax on the import of goods from another State. The power to levy a tax in terms of Articles F 245 and 246 read with Entry 52 of list 11 not being in dispute in the cases at hand, the absence of any specific limitation forbidding the exercise of such power whether for the sake of free trade, commerce and intercourse or otherwise simply means that the State legislatures are free to levy taxes that are non-discriminatory in nature .• G 81 . That brings us to the third contextual feature relevant to the interpretation of Part XIII. We have in the earlier part of this judgment referred to the decisions of this Court in Ku/dip Nayyar 's case and S.R. Bommai \ case apart from the decisions of this Co mt in Special Reference No. J of J 964 (supra) to hold that the Indian Constitution if H

252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I 0 S.C.R.

A not federal in the strict sense of the term is at least quasi federal in character. That proposition has not been disputed even by the counsel for the assesses/dealers, and must be held to be fairly well settled. Equally well settled is the proposition that India's federal strncture is one of the basic features of the Constitution. Relying upon the settled legal position B Mr. Mukul Rohtagi. Attorney General, followed by Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Mr. PP Rao, Mr. AK Sinha and Mr. Devdatt Karnath strenuously argued. and in our opinion rightly so that the provisions of our Constitution are aimed at vesting and maintaining with the States substantial and significant powers in the legislative and executive fields so that States enjoy their share of autonomy and sovereignty in their sphere of governance. This c can in turn be done by interpreting the provisions of the Constitution including those found in Part XIII in a manner that preserves and promotes ·the federal set-up instead of diluting or undermining the same. In ITC Limited v. Agriculturu/Procluce Market Committee and Ors. (2002) 9 SCC 232 this Court ruled that the Constitution of India must be interpreted in a manner that does not whittle down the powers of the State legislature. An interpretation that supports and promotes federalism while upholding the Central supremacy as contemplated by some of the Articles must be preferred. To the same etrect is the nine judge Bench decision of this Court in S.R. Bommai'~· case (supra) where this Court cautioned against adoption of an interpretation that has the effect of whittling down the powers reserved to the States. This Court said:

"276. The fi1ct that under the scheme o(our Constitution. greater power is conferred upon the Ce11t1'e vis-a-vis the States does nut mean that States are mere appendages o( the Centre. Within the sphere allotted to them. States are supreme. The Centre ca1111ot tamper with their powers. Jvlore particularlv. the Courts should not adopt an approach. an interpretation, which has the effect of or tends to have the effect of whittling down the powers reserved to the States. It is a matter ofcommon knowledge that over the last several decades, the trend the world over is towards strengthening of Central Governments be it the result of advances i11 technolugicallscient(fic fields or otherwise, and that even in USA the Centre H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 253

[T. S. THAKUR, CJI] has become far more powe1ful notwithstanding the obvious bias in that Constitution in favour of the States. All !his mus! pul !he cow·/ on guard against anv conscious whittling down of the powers of the States. Let it be said that the federalism in the Indian Constitution is not a mat/er of administrative convenience, but one o( principle - the outcome of our own historical process and a recognition of the ground realities. This aspect has been dealt with elaborately by Shri MC. Setalvad in his Tagore Law Lectures "Union and State relations under the Indian Constitution" (Eastem Law House. Calcutta, 197'1). The nature of c the lndian federation with reference to its historical background, the distribution of legislative powers, financial and administrative relations, powers <~f taxation, provisions rela,ring to trade, commerce and industry, have all been dealt with analytically. It is 1101 D possible nor is ii necesswy for the present purposes to refer to them. It is enough to note that our Comtitution has certainly a bias towards Centre vis-a-vis the States: Automobile Il·ansporl (Rajastha11) Ltd. v. State of Rajastha11. It is equallv necessarv to emphasise that E courts should he careful not to upset the delicatelv- crafted constitutional scheme bv a orocess o( interpretation. " (emphasis supplied)

82. Reference may also be made to Kesavananda Bltarati'.\' F case (supra) where a Bench of thirteen Judges cautioned that the process of interpretation should not diminish or whittle down the provisions of the original contract upon which the federation was founded nor is it legitimate to impose by a process ofjudicial construction a new contract upon the federating states. To the same effect is the decision of this G Court in MA. International Tourist Corporation & ors. I'. State of Haryt1t1a and Ors. (1981) 2 SCC 318 where this Court observed: "6A. There is a patent fallacy in the submission of Shri Sorabji. Before exclusive legislative competence H

254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A can be claimed for Parliament by resort to the residuary power, the legislative incompetence of the State legislature must be clearly established. Entry 97 itself is .1pecijic that a matter can be brought under that entry on(y if it is not enumerated i11 Lisi l1 or List Ill w1d in B the case of a tax if it is nut me11tio11ed in either of those lists. Jn a Federal Constitution like ours where there is a division of!egislative subjects but the residuary power is vested in Parliamenl, such residuarv power cannot be so expansively interpreted. as to whittle down the power of the State le<tislature. That mi<,£ht afject and c Jeopardize the veo 1 federal principle. The federal 1wture of the Constitution demands that m1 i11ferpretation which would allow the exercise of legislative power hv Parliament pursuant to t/1e residuarv powers vested in it to trench upo11 State legislation and which would D therebv destroy or belittle state autonomv 111ust be rejected. " (emphasis supplied)

E 83. An approach which tends to dilute the federal character of our Constitutional scheme must, therefore. be avoided and one that supports and promotes the concept of federalism pn:ferred by the courts while interpreting the provisions of the Constitution. ' .

84. Dealing in particular with the scope and meaning of Article F 304 (b) of the Constitution on a true and correct interpretation Seervai in his treatise Constitutional Law of India (.rnpra) sounded a note of caution and observed that if Article 304(b) was interpreted in a manner that would include levy of taxes as a restriction within the meaning of that Article, it wou Id totally dislocate the scheme under our Constitution. The celebrated author, in our opinion, was right in saying so for the G taxing power of the Union and the States an: mutually exclusive. While the Parliament cannot legislate on the subjects reserved for the States, the States cannot similarly trespass onto the taxing powers of the Union. If the Constitutional scheme does not allow the Parliament to usurp the taxing powers of the State Legislatures, such process of usurpation cannot H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 255

[T. S. THAKUR, CJ!] also be permitted to take place in the garb of making Union executive's A concurrence an essential pre-requisite for any taxing legislation. The following passage from Seervai 's book (Vol. 3, Page 2607) is in this regard instructive:

B "23 .43. Thirdly, the whole scheme of taxation in our Constitution ·would be completely dislocated if Article 304(b) included a tax. The taxing powers of the Union and the States have been made mutually exclusive so that Parliament cannot deprive the States of their taxing powers as has happened in countries where the powers c of taxation are concurrent. It would be surprising if the Union legislature. i.e. Parliament could not take away the taxing powers of the State legislatures and yet it would be open to the Union executive under Article 304(b) to deprive the State legislatures of their taxing D powers.

85. To the same effect are the following observations made by Mathew'.s, J. in GK. Kri.shmm :~ case (supra): E

"27 ....... ... Article 304(a) prohibits 011/y i111positio11 of a discri111inato1y tax. It is not clear from the article that a tax simpliciter can be treated as a restriction 011 the freedom of internal trade. Article 304(a) is intended F to prevent discrimination against imported goods by imposing on them tax at a higher rate than that borne by goods produced in the State. A discriminat01y tax against outside goods is not a tax simplicifer but is a barrier to trade and commerce. Articled 304 itself makes a distinction between tax and restriction. That G apart. taxing powers of the Union and States are separate and mutuallv exclusive. It is rather strange that power to tax given to states. say. for instance under entn' 54 of List II to pass a law imposing tax 011 sale of 1-1

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A goods should depend upon the goodwill o[ the Union executive. "

86. Suffice it to say that the interpretation of any provision of the Constitution will be true and perfect only when the Court looks at the B Constitution holistically and keeps in view all important and significant features of the Constitutional scheme constantly reminding itself of the need for a harmonious construction lest interpretation placed on a given provision has the effect of diluting or whittling down the effect or the importance of any other provision or feature of the Constitution. So c interpreted Article 301 appearing in Part Xlll does not, in our opinion, work as an impediment on the States' taxing powers except in situations where such taxes fall foul of Article 304(a) of the Constitution. The contextual approach thus fully matches the textual interpretation which we have placed on Part XII!.

D 87. On behalf of the dealcrs/assessecs it was contended with considerable amount of tenacity that since Article 304 starts with a 11011-obstante clause the inference was that the framers of the Constitution treated taxes as impediments for free trade, commerce and intercourse. The argument was that unless Article 301 was understood to mean that taxes could also be restrictions on free trade and commerce, there was no need for the framers of the Constitution to start Article 304 with a 11011-ubsta11te clause inasmuch as a 11m1-obstante clause is meant to be only an exception to the generality of the provision. Similar contentions urged in the past have been noticed by this Court and by jurists alike while attempting interpretation of Part XIII. This is evident from the passages which have dealt with the anomaly arising out of the use of the expression 'subject to' in Article 30 l and the 11011-ubsta11/e clause in Article 304 of the Constitution. This Court has often found the use of the 11011-ubstanle clause in Article 304 to be either confusing or an unnecessary surplusage. But the problem with the use of non-ohstante clauses in Part Xlll has been the subject matter of criticism even in the Constituent Assembly as is evident from the following passages from the debates:

JINDAL STAINLESS LID. v. STATE OF HARYANA 257

IT. S. THAKUR, CJl]

Constitution Assembly Debates (Vol. IX Page 1131): A "D1: PS Desh11111kh: If we ana~v.~e the new articles that have hee11 proposed, it is very difficult to understand them and I 1hink the comment is ahsolutely justified that this is going to he a lawyers' constitution, a "paradise for laH'}'ers" where there ·will he so many innumerable B loophole.1· that we will he wasting years and years before H'e could come to the final and correct interpretation of many clauses. lf"we read this article 274, you will.find, Sil; that this is one of the most wonder/iii articles in the ·whole Constitution. This is not the only one; there are c many others. If we count the use of the word 'notwithstanding' in this Constitution, I am certain that the 1111111/Jer of' times that word is used will far exceed the use of' the word 'Parliament' or 'Constitution' in the whole Constitution. If' you will permit me, Si1; I will descrihe the situation a little graphically. We first of' all D pmvide and say or declare that a certain person is a man. Then, we say, notwithstanding this declaration, you shall wear a sari and nothing hut a sari. Shri 1: 1: Krislmamachari : There is no har to that. E D1: P.S. Deslwmkh : Then, notwithstanding the fact that you are considered a man, and notwithstanding the fact that you 1vec1r nothing else hut saris, you will wear a Gandhi cap also. Then we have another 'notwithstanding'. Not1vithsta11di11g that you are a man, notwithstanding that you shall wear nothing hut a sari, F 11of\vith.1·1andi11g that you shall also wear a Gandhi cap, you will he at liher(v to describe yourself as a woman. (/,a11ghter) Something of that sort, as funny and as amusing, is really the situation so far as this article 2 74 is concerned. If you read through it, you will see G that as soon as the first part is ove1~ we start with "11otwithsta11ding whatever is said in the .first part, such and such a thing will happen". In the next clause, we say not onlv notwithstanding what is contained in the first clause, together with notwithstanding what is H

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A contai11ed i11 the other clauses' and then add something more. I think there is a better method of drafting. Even if it is necessary to cope with complex situations and to provide something on the li11es proposed, there should he a simpler and more direct WCf;V of drafting and making B a provision which is not so ummderstandable that onlv supermen could read this constit11tion, even ass11ming that onlv supermen are to be born in India hereafta If this Constitution is made for the ai•erage man, if it is going to affect the rights and privileges of the ordinary common man, it is necessm:v that the drafters of this c constitution should he more clear and use phraseology which is more easi!v understandahle and simp!e1: xxx xxx xxx xxx I hope therefore that the whole chapter will be made simp!e1: l11stead Cl( tving the hand\' of both the States as well as of Parliament, it would he far better not to commit ourselves to any policy, hut to leave the whole thi11g to Parliamelll. Otherwise, the situation which has arise11 already in respect of article 16 may arise in respect of article 274 itself It is, therefore, better to have simpler provisions and I have given them the simplest form. 1 hope that this will appeal to the drafters of the Comtitution and if thev accept it, I can tell them that they ·will he out of much of the trouble. But !f they i11sist upon the draft that they have produced, it will he F Ferv difficult.for trade and commerce llOt only to prvsper hut even to exist. ··

·88. Jn Automobile Tramport case (supra), SK Das, J. speaking for the majority noticed the anomaly arising out of the use of the 11011- G ohstallfe clause in Article 304 and described the same to be "somewhat inappropriate". The majority judgment in Automobile 7/·ansport case (supra) in fact took the view that the mix up of exception upon exception in the series of Articles in Part XIII makes a purely textual interpretation difficult. The following passage is in this regard apposite: H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 259

IT. S. THAKUR, CJI]

"J 0. Art. 304 agai11 begins with a 11011 obstinate clause A mel1lioning hoth Art. 301 and Article 303, though Article 301 relates only to the Legislature of a State. Article 303 relates to hath the State Legislature and Parliament and again the non ohstante clause in Article 304 is .rnmewlwt inappmpriate. The fact of the matter is that B there is such a mix up of exception upon exception in the series of' articles in Part XJJJ that a purely textual i11terpretatio11 may not disclose the true i11te11dment of the articles. "

89. Subba Rao, J.. as His Lordship then was, in a separate judgment delivered in A11to111obile Transport case (supra) also found the use of the 11011-ohstante clause to be a "defect in phraseology''. His Lordship held that the 11011-ohstante clause has no relevance to Article 303 even when the Article is mentioned alongwith the 11011-ohstante clause. The D importance of the 11011-ohstante clause was then confined to Article 304(b) as is clear from the following paragraph of the judgment :

"42 . ......... The 11011-ohstante clause vis-a-vis Article 304(a) may have some relevance so far as Article 301 E is concerned. for it enaMes the Legislature of a State to impose an i111pedi111e11t on the fi'ee movement of trade in spite of the fi'eedom declared under Article 301. Buf it has no relevance to Article 303. which onzv prohibits the State f,egislature fi'om making a discriminatory law and it does not in any way prohihit the State Legislature ji·mn imposing a no11-discrimi11atorv tax permitted under Art. 304(a). But. with re/ere11ce to Art. 304(/J), the 11011- ohswnte clause has significance and meaning even in regard to Art. 303. as clause (b) lif'ts the ban imposed hy Art. 303, suhject to the limitation mentioned therein. G Therefore. the non-ohstante clause must he deemed to applv only to that part of' Art. 304 appropriate to the said clause. if' so read. the difficulty in the construction disappears. Art. 304(a) lifts the general han imposed H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

/\. hy ,·1rticle 301 in respect of imposition of 11011- discriminatory taxes 011 good1· imported, which indicates that hut for the said provision the law of taxation in that regard v.·ould i11fi'i11ge the fi·eedom declared under Art. 301." B

90. Hidayatullah, J. also found the 11011-ohstante clause in Article 304 to be somewhat anomalous and described the same as "inaccurate drafiing o/ the Constitution".

91. Suffice it to say that the use of the non-obstante clause in c Article 304 has had its share of criticism from the very inception which criticism !ms to an extent been prophetic for the interpretation of Part Xlll has indeed been a lawyer's paradise over the past fifty years or so. Seervai has in his treatise adverted to this anomaly arising from the use of the non-obstante clause and said that the same covers both the clauses D (a) and (b) of Article 304. He argues with considerable forensic force that reference to A11icle 30 I in the non-obstante clause is meaningless having regard to the fact that the freedom granted thereunder is itself subject to other provisions of PartXlll including Article 304. This would necessarily imply that Article 304 (a) and (b) do not subtract anything from Article 30 l. That appears to us to be the correct view on the subject. While it is true that legislature does not waste words and that no part of a legislation can be rendered a su1vlusage, the only rational meaning that can be attributed to the 11011-oh.1·1ante clause appearing in Article 304 is that the same was used only as a manner of abundant caution and a possible reassurance that A11icle 301 is indeed subordinate to A11icle F 304 which it was even otherwise without the use of that clause. The net effect of the discussion therefore is that the expression 'subject to other provisions of this Part' appearing in Article 30 I and the 11011-ohstante clause appearing in Article 304 do not traverse in different directions. There is no conflict in the two provisions on account of the use of the said expressions. Interpreted individually or conjointly, the said two expressions simply mean thatA11icle 304 takes precedence over Article JO 1. While Article 304(a) recognizes the power of the State Legislatures to tax goods imported from other State, it also imposes limitations on the exercise of that power. On the other hand clause (b) to Article 304 permits imposition of reasonable restrictions subject to the proviso H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 261

IT. S. THAKUR, CH] appearing below that clause. We have thus no hesitation in rejecting the argument that the use of the non-ohstante clause in Article 304 is suggestive of the Constitution recognizing taxes as restrictions under Article 301 or that the power to impose a reasonable restriction under Article 304(b) is meant to include the power to levy taxes so that levy of taxes may be permissible only in case the procedure provided under the proviso is followed.

92. On behalf of the dealers/assessee it was argued that the State kgislatures may levy taxes that may operate as fiscal baniers and thereby prevent or restrict inter State trade, commerce and intercourse. It was urged that if such statutory fiscal barrier is also held not to be a restriction c upon the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed under Part XIII, a citizen whose right under that Part is affected may have no redress against such levies. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Ramiilal v. Jncome 1(i:.; (~[freer, Moliindargarh, AIR 1951 SC 97, it was contended that a challenge to a fiscal statute shall not be maintainable even under Part lll of the Constitution, thereby, not only violating the D citizen's constitutional rights of free trade and commerce but also denying them the remedy against such violation. This according to the learned counsel was one among other reasons why levy of taxes ought to be treated as restrictions on free trade, commerce and intercourse.

93. In Ramjilal's case (supra), a petition under A1ticle 32 of the E Constitution was filed before this Comt by the petitioner who was canying on business in the State of Nabha. With the merger of Nabha into the State of Pepsu, the petitioner was required by the assessing authority to file return and pay income tax for the income earned by him during the previous years. AggTieved. the petitioner challenged the proceedings inter f alia on the ground that the assessment of tax for previous year violated his right guaranteed under A1ticle 14. 111is Colllt repelled the contention founded on Article 14 holding that there was reasonable classification of assessee under the relevant statute and thatthe petitioner's challenge to the proceedings under Article 14 was untenable. Having said that, the G Court examined the question whether the taxing statute violated Right to Property guaranteed under A1ticle 3 1 ( 1) of the Constitution. Repelling the contention this Court held that if collection of taxes amounted to deprivation of property within the meaning of Article 31 (1), there was

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 10 S.C.R.

A no point in making a separate provision regarding the same as is made in Article 265. This Court declared that Article 31 ( 1) must be regarded as a guarantee against deprivation of property otherwise, than by imposition of tax for otherwise Article 265 would become wholly redundant. The Court declared that the Constitution had treated taxation as distinct from compulsory acquisition of property and has made independent provisions giving protection against taxation.

94. Then came Kunnathat Thatlmnni Moopil Nair v. The State ti( Keuzla & Am:, AIR 1961SC552, where again one of the questions that fell for consideration was whether Article 265 of the Constitution c was a complete answer to the attack against the Constitutionality of a taxing statute. This Court held that in order that a taxing law may be valid, the tax proposed to be levied must be within the legislative competence of the legislature imposing the tax and authorizing the collection thereof and that the tax must be subject to the condition laid down under Article 13 of the Constitution. One of such conditions declared by this Court was that the legislature shall not make any law that takes away or abridges the equality clause in Article 14. The Court declared that the guarantee of equal protection of la~s must extend even to taxing statutes. It clarified that every person may not be taxed equally but property of the same character has to be taxed, the taxation must be by the same standard so that the burden of taxation may fall equally on all persons holding that kind and extent of property. If the taxation, generally speaking, imposes similar burden on everyone with reference to that particular kind and extent of property on the basis of such taxation, the law shall not be open to attack on the ground of inequality even though the result of taxation may be that the total burden on different persons may be unequal. The Court summed up that taxing statute is not fully immune from an attack on the ground that it infringes equality clause under Article 14, no matter the Courts are not concerned with the policy underlying tl1e taxing statute or whether a pa11icular tax could have been imposed in a different way or a way that the Court G . might think would have been more equitable in the interest of equity. '

95. To the same effect is the decision in Laxmanappa lla1111111a11tappa Jamkhandi v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 3. Reference may also be made to Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1621 which took note of the pronouncements H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 263

[T. S. THAKUR, CJl] of this Court in the three cases mentioned above to examine wliether there was any conflict between the view taken in Moopil Nair case on the one hand and Ramiilal and Laxmanappa cases on the other, the Court found on a closer examination that there was no such conflict and clarified that the observation made in Ramjilal and Laxmanappa cases must in the context bear reference to abrogation of A1ticle 31 ( 1) only in so far as the admissibility of a challenge to taxation law with reference to Part lll is concerned. The Court explained that in Moopil Nair~~ case this Court has held that a taxing statute was not immune from challenge under A1ticle J 4 just because the legislature that imposed the tax was competent to levy the tax in tenns of A1ticle 265. This Court summed up the legal position in the follo~ing words: c

" The result of the authorities may thus he summed up:

( l) A tax will he valid only if it is authorized hy a law D enacted hy a competent legislature. That is Article 265.

(2) A law which is authorized as aforesaid must further he not repugnant to any of the provisions of the Constitution. 17ms, a law which contravenes Articles J4 will he had, Moopil Nair :5 case. E (3) A law which is made hy a competent legislature and which is not otherwise invalid. is not open to attack under Article 3 J (1 ). Ramjilal :5 case and Laxmanappa :5 case. F (4) A lmv which is ultra vires either h.ecause the legislature has no competence over it or it contravenes, .l'Olne constiflltional inhibition, has no legal exisrence, and an1• action taken thereunder will he an i11fi·inge111e111 ofArticle 19 (1) (~) Himmatlal:s- case and Laxmanappa :1· G case. The result will he the same when the law is a colourahle piece of legislation.

(5) Where assessment proceedings are taken without the authority of law, or where the proceedings are repugnant to rules of natural justice, there is an H

2(,4 SUPREME COURT REPORI'S [2016] I 0 S.C.R.

A i11fi·inge111ent of the right guara11teed under Article 19(1)(() a11d Artide 19(l}(g); Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd: Moo pi! Nair :1 case and Shri Madan Lal Arora '.1 case. "

96. The above statement of Jaw in our view 1s legally 11 unexceptionable. The argument that Ramji!al and Laxmanappa '.1 cases place taxing statute beyond the purview of challenge under Part Ill has been correctly repelled and fiscal statutes are also held to be open to challenge on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. The contention that an aggrieved citizen may have no remedy against a taxing c statute does not, therefore, hold good. · Whether or not a challenge to such a statute succeeds is, however, a different matter. It is fairly well settled by now that Courts show considerable deference to the legislature in the matter of quantum of tax that may be levied as also the subjects and individuals upon whom the same may be levied. Just because room D for cha l!enge to a fiscal statute is limited is in our view no reason to hold that levy of taxes otherwise within the competence of the legislature imposing the same should be seen as a restriction on free trade and commerce guaranteed under Article 301 which Article does not either textually or contextually recognize levy of taxes as impediments except in cases where the same are discriminatory in nature thereby being offensive to Article 304 (a) of the Constitution.

97. On behalf of the States it was argued by the learned Attorney General, and M/s. Rao and Dwivedi that the decisions of this Court in Atiabari and Automobile Tramport cases had drawn support for their conclusion on the Australian and American decisions. It was urged that although the view taken by the majority decision in the former had recognized that decisions from other jurisdictions may not be helpful while interpreting the provisions of our Constitution, yet the Court bad referred to and relied upon those decisions to buttress its conclusions. The Australian decisions relied upon by the majority have, it was contended, been reversed by subsequent pronouncements of the Australian High Court, which pronouncements are now gravitating towards the theory that discriminatory taxes alone will operate as restrictions against free trade. commerce and intercourse. It was in that view argued that the theoretical basis borrowed from the foreign judgments by this Court in Atiabari case stood demolished or atleast J-1

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 265

[T. S. THAKUR, CJ!] substantially eroded by the subsequent pronouncements of the Australian A High Courts, thereby, rendering the correctness of the view taken by the majority in Atiabari 's case open to serious doubts.

98. There is. in our view. considerable merit in that submission. In Atiabari's case (supra), Gajendragadkar J ., speaking for the majority while referring to the American and Australian decisions observed: B

"59 .... ...... We have deliberately nut referred lo these decisions earlier because we thought it would be unreasonable to refer to or rely on the said section or c the decisions thereon for the purpose of construing the relevant Articles of Part Xll! of our Constitution. ft is commonplace to sav that the political and historical background of the federal politv adopted by the Australia11 Com111011wealth. the setting o(the Constitution itsell the distribution of powers and the general scheme D o( the Constitution are different. and so it would not be safe to seek for guidanc.:e or assistance from the Australian decisions when we are called upon to construe the provisions of our Co11stitution. 111 this connection ·we have already referred to !he note of E warning struck by Venkalarama Aiyar, J .. against indiscriminate reliance being placed 011 Australian and American decisions in i11terpreti11g our Constitution in the case of M.P. v: Su11darara111ier & Co. The same caution was expressed by Uwyer, C.J, as early as 1939 when he observed in The Central Provinces and Berar F Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1938. In the matter of AIR 1939 FC. 1 at P.5: ''there are few subjects on which the decisions <!f other Courts require to be treated with greater caution than !hat of federal and provincial powers, for in the last analysis the G decision must depend upon the words of the Constitution which the Court is interpreting; and since no two Constitutions are in identical terms it is extremely unsafe to assume that a decision on one of them can be applied without qualification to another. This may be so even H

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A where the wvrd1· vr expressivns used are the same in both cases. for a word vr a phrase may take a cvlvur from its cvntexl and bear dijfere111 senses accordingly. ·· (emphasis supplied)

99. Having said that Gajendragadkar J., referred to these decisions with a view to supporting his conclusions by reference to Judges in other jurisdiction responding to similar challenges posed by interpretation of what His Lordship described as "sister constitutions". He said:

c "59. ......... When you are dealing wilh the problc!m of construing a constitutional provision which is nune-tuo- clear or lucid you feel inclined to inquire how other judicial minds have responded lo 1he challenge D presented by similar provisions in olher sisler Constitulions. It is in thal spiril !hat we propose to refer to two Privy Council decisions which dealt with the construction of Section 92 1~/ the Australian · Constitution. " E I 00. The Court, then, relied upon the decisions of the Australian High Court in James 1•. Commonwealth of Australia (1936) A.C. 578 and Commonwealth ofAustmlia mu/ others 1•. Bank of New South Wales and others /1950/ A.C. 235 to hold that the test of direct F and immediate effect evolved by the Australian High Court pronouncements. while interpreting Section 92 of the Australian Constitution, was the correct test applicable even to our Constitution including interpretation of Article 301 thereof. The Court said:

G Commonwealth o(Australia 1•. Bank o(New South Wales "61 . ......... !11 deciding the said quesriu11 011e 11( the tests which was applied by Lord Porter was: .. Dues the act not remotez)I or incidentally (as to which they will say something later) bur directly restrict the inter-State H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. S'fATE OF HARYANA 267

IT. S. THAKUR, CJ!] business of banking". and he concluded that "two general propositions may be accepted. (1) that regulation of trade, commerce and intercourse among the States is compatible with its absolute fi·eedom, and (2) that Section 92 is violated univ when a legislative or executive a<.:/ operates to restrict such trade, commerce and intercourse directlv and i111111ediatelv as distinct [rum creating some indirect or consequential impediment which mav fairly be regarded as remote". This decision thus justifies the co11clusion we have reached about the scope and effect of' Article 301. ·· c (emphasis supplied)

I 0 I. In Automobile's case (supra) also Das, J. while speaking for the majority followed the direct and immediate effect test relying upon the pronouncements of the High Court of Australia in Commonwealth D ofAmtralia and Ors. v. Bank of New South Wales and Ors. /195()/ A.C. 235. This is evident from the following passage:

"10. ...... ... In Section 92 c~f the Australian E Constitution the expression used was "absolutely free" and repeatedly the question was posed as to what this freedom meant. We do not propose to recite the somewhat chequered history of the Australian decisions in re5pect of which Lord Porle1: ajier a review (?f the earlier cases, said in Commonwealth of Australia v. F Bank cif New South 1Yales that in the ::/abyrinlh (?f cases decided under Section 92 there was no golden thread". What is more important for our purpose is that he expressed the view that two general propositions stood out from the decisions: (i) that regulation o( trade. G commerce and intercourse among the Stales is compatible with its absolute fi·eedom. and (ii) that Section 9? o(/he Australian Co11stit11tio11 is violated onlv when a legislative or executive act operates to restrict such trade, commerce and intercourse directlv and H

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A irnmediatelv as disti11ct from creating some indirect or inconseque11tia/ impedi111e111 which mav fi1irlv be regarded as remote . ......... ''

102. On behalf of the States it was contended and. in our opinion, B rightly so that the "direct and immediate" effect test evolved by the pronouncement of the Australian High Court has itself been watered down and diluted. The current view in Australia is that only such taxes as are discriminatory introduced by way of a protectionist measure operate as restrictions on the freedom of trade. commerce and c intercourse. This is evident from the decisions of the Australia High Court in Cole v. Whitfield (1988) 165 CLR 360. The Court in that case reviewed the case law on the subject and rejected the argument that if Section 92 of the Australian Constitution was interpreted to be forbidding only discriminatory burdens it would have the effect of denying the freedom of trade. commerce and intercourse. The Court said:

.. .. Plainly. howeve1; the constructi<m which treats Sectio11 92 as hei11g concerned to guarantee the.fi·eedom of inter-State trade and commerce from discriminatory burdens does not involve the co11seque11ce Iha! the gm11t of legislative power with re.1pect lo inter-State trade and commerce is deprived of its essential content. "

I 03. The Court noticed the evolution of the law on the subject and held that it is only discriminatory burdens that are forbidden by Section 92 and that the question whether a burden is indeed discriminatory is a question of fact and degree to be answered upon judicial interpretation and impressions. The following passage is, in this regard, instructive.

G " Departing now from the doctrine which has ji1i!ed to retain general acceptance. we adopt the inte1pretatio11 which. as we have shown. is favoured by history and context. In doing so. we must say something about the resolution of cases in which no impermissible pw1Jose H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STA.TE OF HARYANA 269

[T. S. THAKUR, CJ!] appears on the face of the impugned law, but its effect A is discriminatory in that ii discriminates against inler- State trade and commerce and thereby protects intra- State and commerce of the same kind. We mention first Com111onwealth /mi's enacted under Section 51 (i) which govern rhe conduct of inter-State trade and commerce. B Such laws will commonly not appear to discri111i11ate in a relevant sense if they apply to all tra11sactio11s c1f a given kind within the reach of the Parliament. It is. howeve1; possible for a general law enacted under Section 51 fi) tu offend Sec/ion 92 if its effect is discriminatory and the discrimination is upon c protectionist grounds. Whether such a law is discrimina/orv in effect and whether the discri111inalio11 is of a protectionist character are questions raising issues of fact and degree. The answer tu those question.1· mav. in the ultimate. depend upon judicial impression. " D (emphasis supplied)

I 04. The Court also held that it is only if the discrimination is ofa protectionist character that Section 92 of the Australian Constitution would E stand violated. The Court said:

"Jn the case of a Slate law. the reso/11tio11 of the case mus/ start with a consideration of the nature of the law impugned. I{ ii apvlies to all trade and co111merce. inter- F State and intra-State alike, ii is less likelv lo he protectionist than if there is discrimination appearing on the face of the law. But where the law in effect. if no/ in furm. discriminates in favour ofintra-State trade. it will nevertheless offend against Section 92 if !he G discrimination is of a protectionist characte1: A law which has as its real object the prescription of a standard for a product or a service or a 11or111 of commercial conduct will not ordinarily be grounded in protectio111:m1 and will 11ot be pmhibited hv Section 92. !-I

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 10 S.C.R.

A But i( a law, w'1ich mav be otherwise justified b!' reference tu an object which is nut prutectiu11ist. discriminates against inter-State trade or commerce in pursuit of' that object in a wav or to an extent which warrants charac:terizatiu11 o( the law as prutectiu11is1. a court will be justified in concluding that it 11u11etheless B offends· Section 92." (emp!ta.\·i.\· .rnpplied)

105. The above passage signifies a paradigm shift in the judicial c opinion in Australia as regards the interpretation of Section 92 of the Australian Constitution. The earlier view that any. impediment including one in the nature of a tax which directly and immediately affects free trade, commerce and intercourse would violate Section 92 has been evidently abandoned by the Australian jurists. It follows that whatever support may have been available from the earlier decisions for the view taken in Atiabari (supra) and Automobile(supra) cases as to the true test applicable for interpreting Part Xlll, has. if we may use that expression, "fizzled out" with the passage of time. l 06. We may, at this stage, deal with yet another contention urged on behalf of the dealers in support of their case that taxes were. in the scheme of Part XIII. treated as restrictions. It was argued that the presence of Article 306 of the Constitution which now stands repealed by Constitution 7'h Amendment Act. 1956 was itself suggestive of the fact that taxes were intended to be restrictions on free trade, commerce and intercourse, for otherwise, there was no reason why a provision Iike Article 306 should have been incorporated by the framers of the Constitution. Article 306, as it stood, before its deletion, was in the following terms:

G "Article 306. Power of certain States in Part B of the First Schedule to impose restrictions 011 trade and commerce. - Notwithstanding anything in the fi1regoing provisions of this Par/ or in any other provisions of the Constitution, any State specified i11 .Part B of t/Je First H

JJNDAL STAINLESS LJ'D. v. STATE OF HARYANA 271

[T. S. THAKUR, Cll]

Schedule which he.fore the commencement of this A Constitution was levving any tax or duty on the import of'good1· into the State fi-om other States or 011 the export of' goods from the State to other States may, if an agreeme11t in that he half has heen entered into bef\veen the Government of' India and the Government of that B Stale, conti11ue to levy and collect such tax or duty suhjecl to the /erms o{ such agreement a11d for such period not exceeding ten years fi"om the commencement · of' this Constitution as 111ay he specified in the agreement. Provided that the President may at any time after the C expirntion of fi1•e years from such com111enceme11t terminate or modi/.}• any such agreement ij; after consideration of the report of the Finance Commission constituted under Article 280, he think\- it necessary to do so." D

107. A careful reading of the above would show that the provision started with a 11011-ohstante clause and made it constitutionally permissible for any State specified in Part B of the First Schedule to continue levying taxes or duties on the import of goods into the State E from other States or on the export of goods from the State to other States. if an agreement in that behalf has been entered into between the Government of India and the Government of that State for such period not exceeding ten years as has been stipulated in .the agreement. l 08. The historic rationale behind incor1M .1: 1<'11 of Article 306 lay in the fact that some States were imposing taxes/duties on the import of goods into their territory and on the export of goods from their ten-itory, which taxes and levies were inconsistent with the Scheme of Part Xlll, but, since the States were heavily relying upon the revenue so collected, the tax barriers set-up for such collection could not be completely taken away in one go. The framers of the Constitution in that view considered it necessary in the interest of stability of revenue to preserve the power exercised by the States for a limited period subject to the conditions stipulated in A1ticle 306. The true effect of Article 306, therefore, was that while the States had no power under the Constitutional Scheme to H

272 SUPREME COURr REPORl'S [2016] 10 S,CR.

A levy customs duties on the import and export of goods to and from a State and even when such taxes and levies were discriminatory vis-a- vis goods produced/manufactured from outside the State, the discriminatory duties and levies were in larger interest of stability of revenue of the concerned States permitted, but, conditionally for a limited period. Themarginal note of Article 306, therefore, rightly mentions such B levies and duties to be restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse, The reason for such description being the discriminatory nature of such taxes and levies. Seen in the historical perspective, it is futile to argue that Article 306 lends any assistance for determining whether taxes act as restrictions on free trade, commerce and intercourse. Seervai has c correctly summed-up the true import of Article 306 in the following passage from his treatise (supra):

"24.42. Again, Article 306 enabled the farmer Native D States, which hecame Part B States, to continue to levy any tax or duty on the import of' goodI' imo such States jimn nther States and to illlpose a dw1· on the export of goods out of such States for a limited period of time. 771e reasn11 .fi>r enacting this provision is simple. First, Part B States claimed to he sovereign States vi.1·-ll-vis E British !11dia, and vis-a-vis other Native States so that the provin('es of British India Vl'ere i11 relation to Native States, and the Native States were foreign States to one another. 17ie duties of import and export levied by Native States were thus duties of' cusrom.1· which are vvel! known jiJr creating tariff harriers. 77ws a customs duty on the import ol !;()()111· creates a tariff wall which the outside ,1!,onds mus! surmount since there is no obligation on the Native State imposing such duty to impose any corresponding d11tv 011 similar gond1' manufacrured and produced in the other States. And the same is true of G duties o{ export for thev can effectiveZ11 prevent goods going out ol the State hy making them unsaleable in States where goods hear no such tax or hear a very much smaller tax. This scheme of taxation is hasical!v opposr>d to the scheme of our Constitution hecause the H

JINDAL STAINLESS LrD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 273

JT. S. THAKUR, CH]

States of India are not foreign States to one another, A and no State can levy a duty or customs on goods i111portedfi"Om a11othe1; for no State has power to levy a duty of customs. That power he/ongs exclusii·ely to Parliamenl in relation to foreig11 countries. Second!)', such duties would ordinarily contravene Article 304(a) B so far as import ji-om other States is co11cerned. Hmveve1; as 1he revenues o/' lhe Native States were to a greater or smaller extent depende11t on duties of customs, lo have prohihited them al once 1~011/d have dislocated the .finawes of those States. So, for a limited period of time, these duties \-Vere a/lovl'ed to continue. " c

For all that we have said above we have no hesitation in rejecting the contention urged on behalf of the dealers. I 09. It was next argued on behalf of the dealers that an unreasonably high rate of tax could by itself constitute a restriction otfonsive to Article 30 I of the Constitution. This was according to learned counsel for the dealers acknowledged even in the minority judgment delivered by Sinha, CJ in Atiabari's case (supra). If that be so, the only w:iy such a restriction could meet the constitutional requirements would be through the medium of the proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution. There is, in our opinion, no merit in that contention either and we say so for two precise reasons. Firstly, because taxes whether high or low do not constitute restrictions on the freedom of trade and commerce. We have held so in the previous paragraphs of the judgment based on our textual understanding of the provisions of Part XJ11 which is matched by the contextual interpretation. That being so the mere fact that a tax rnsts a heavy burden is no reason for holding that it is a restriction on the freedom of trade and commerce. Any such excessive tax burden may be open to challenge under Part Ill of the Constitution but the extent of burden would not by itselfjustify the levy being struck down as a restriction contrary to Article 30 I of the Constitution.

110. Secondly because, levy of taxes is both an attribute of sovereignty and an unavoidable necessity. No responsible government can do without levying and collecting taxes for it is only through taxes H

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] l 0 S.C.R.

A that governments are run and objectives of general public good achieved. The conceptual or juristic basis underlying the need for taxation has not, therefore, been disputed by learned counsel for the dealers and, in our opinion, rightly so. That taxation is essential for fulfilling the needs of the government is even otherwise well-settled. A reference to "A Treati~·e on the Constit11tio11al Limitations" (8 11' Edn. 1927 - Vol. II B Page 986) by Thomas M Cooley brings home the point with commendable clarity. Dealing with power of taxation Cooley says:

"Taxes are defined to be burdens or charges imposed c bj1 the legislative power upon persons or property, to raise money for public purposes. The power to lax rests upon necessity, and is inherent in eve1y sovereignty. The legislature of every free Stale will possess it under tlze general grant of legislative fHJWe1; whether particularly D specified in the constitution among the powers to be exercised by it or not. No constituticmal government can exist without it, and no arl!itrarv government without regular and steadv taxation could be anything but an oppressive and vexatious despotism. since the onlv alternative to taxation would be a forced extortion fi;r E the needs o{ government kom such persons or objects as the men in power might select as victims. ··

111. Reference may also be made to the following passage F appearing in McCulloch 1'. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819) where Chief Justice Marshall recognized the power oftaxation and pointed out that the only security against the abuse of such power lies in the structure of the government itself. The court said:

G "43 ...... . .it is admitted that the power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the very existence of government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects lo which it is applicable to the utmost extent to which the gover11111e11t may choose to H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 275

[T. S. THAKUR, CJl] can:v it. The univ security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the government itself' In imposing a tax. the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is. in general, a sufficient securitv against erroneous and oppressive taxation.

44. The people of a State. therefore, give to their government a right of taxing themselves and their property: and as the exigencies of the government cannot be limited, they prescribe 110 limits to the exercise of this right, resting contldentlv on the interest o( the legislat01; and on the influence ol the constituents over their representative. to guard them against its abuse."

112. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in State of Madras v. N.K. Nataraja Mudaliar (AIR 1969 SC J.17) where this Court recognized that political and economic forces would operate against the levy of an unduly high rate of tax. The Court said:

''16....... ... Again, in a democratic constitution political forces would operate against the levv of an undu/1• high rate of tax. The rate of tax on sales of a commoditv mav not ordinarilv be based on arbitrary considerations. but in the light of the (acilitv ol trade in a particular commoditv. the market conditions internal and external - and the likelihood of consumers not being scared awav hv the price which includes a high rate o(tax. Attention F must also he directed sub-Section (5) <~f Sec ti rm 8 which authorizes the State Government, 11otwithsta11di11g anything contained in Section 8. in the public interest to waive lax or impose tax on sales at a lower rate on inter-State trade or commerce. lt is clear that the G legislature has contemplated that elasticity of rates consistent with economic forces is clearly intended lo be maintained. "

276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 10 S.C.R.

A I 13. Also apposite is the following passage from the said decision where this Court held that free flow of trade does not necessarily depend upon the rate of taxes but upon a variety of factors which the Court identified in the Jollowing words:

B ··; 4_ ......... The flow of trade does not necessari~v depend upon the rates of sales tax: it depe11d1· upon a w1riety olfactors, such as the source of supply, place o/ consumption, existence of trade, channels, the rates o/ji-eight, trading facilities. availahility ol efficient c transport and other facilities for carrving on trade. Instances can easily be imagined of cases in ·which notwithstanding the lower rate o/ tax in a particular part o{ the country goods may be purchased ji-0111 another part, u·here a higher rate o{ tax prevails. D Suppo.,.ing in a particular State in respect o{ a commodity, the rate of tax is 2 per cent hut if"the benefit ol that low rate is offvet hy the freight which a merchant in another State may have to pay for can:ving that conmwdizv over a long distance, the merchant would he willing to purchase the good1· .fi'om a nearer State. even though the rate of tax in that State mav he higher. Existence o{ long standing husiness relations, availahilitv of communications, credit facilities and a host of other factors - natural and husi11ess - C11ler into the mainte11a11ce of trade relatio11s and the .fi'ee flow F of trade ca1111ot necessarilv he deemed to have heen ohsrructed merely because in a particular State the rate of tax on sales is higher than the rates prevaili11g in other States. "

G 114. Reliance by the counsel for the dealers upon the judgment of Sinha, CJ is also, in our opinion, of no avail to them. After holding taxes to be outside the purview of Part Xlll of the Constitution, His Lordship made the following observations:

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 277

[T. S. THAKUR, CH]

"'17 . ......... If a !av.· is passed b.v the Legislature A imposi11g a tax which in its true nature and effect is meant to impose an impediment to the.free.flow of trade, commerce and intercourse, for example. by imposing a high tariff' 1rnll, or hy preventing imports i11to or exports out of a State, such a law is outside the significance of B taxation, as such. hllf assumes the character of a trade harrier which it was the intention of the Constitution makers to aholish hy Part XIII. "

115. A careful reading of the above would show that Sinha, CJ c had two situations in mind. One, where the State prevents imports into and exports out of the State and the other where the State imposes the high tariff wall with a view to imposing an impediment to the free flow of trade, commerce and intercourse. Insofar as the first category viz. laws that forbid imports into and exports out of a State are concerned, the same would work as a restriction in terms of restrictions within the contemplation of Part Xlll and may be permissible in the manner and to the extent the said Part permits to do so, but, in the second case, viz. legislature imposing a high tariff wall so as to operate as an impediment to free flow of trade, commerce and intercourse, there are considerable difficulties. That is so because the judgment does not elaborate as to what would constitute a high tariff wall for the tax to operate as a restriction/impediment.

116. Counsel for the parties were, in the course of arguments, repeatedly asked whether any objective standards and norms can be evolved to determine the height and the width of the wall referred to in the passage extracted above. They were, however, unable to suggest any such no1111s. They fairly conceded that it was difficult if not impossible to evolve any such norm applicable to myraid situations that would arise before the courts. This implies that the tariff wall theory actually breaks down and is not amenable to judicially manageable dimensions. What G may sound a high tariff wall or a fiscal barrier to one may not be so to the other. What may constitute a fiscal wall or barrier for one 'category of traders may not be so for other categories. So also, the tax' at a given rate may be high on a particular commodity but reasonable qua another. Suffice it to say that the fiscal wall theory gets into serious difficulties H

278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A when it comes to enforcement or effectuating the same. The logic behind the theory in fact cracks and gives-up. Such being the position, we have little hesitation in holding that the fiscal wall theory propounded in Sinha, CJ's minority judgment is not really workable and has not commended itself to us. It follows that simply because the tax is high is B no reason for it to change its character and take the fonn of a restriction within the meaning of Part XI!T, no matter any one aggrieved of such heavy burden shall have the liberty to assail the same on all such grounds as imy be available to him under Part III of the Constitution. We are conscious of the fact that some decisions of this Com1 in Rt!ia Jaga1111ath Baksh Singh v. State of UP AIR 1962 SC 1563; Federation of c l/otel & Restaurant Assn. <~f India etc. v. Union of India & ors. (1989) 3 SCC 634; J' V Srinivasamurthy and ors. v. State of Mysore and Am: AIR 1959 SC 894; D G Gose & Co. (Agellfs) (P) Ltd. v. State of Kenda and anr. (1980) 2 SCC 410; A Suresh and others v. State of TN and another (1997) 1 SCC 319 have declared that just D because a tax is heavy is no reason for it to be contrary to Part III, but we leave that question open to be examined in appropriate cases as and when any such challenge is mounted by anyone aggrieved of an unduly heavy tax rate.

117. That brings us to the question whether the use of the F expression "by virtue of any entry relating to trade and commerce" appearing in Article 303 are wide enough to include entries relating to levy of taxes also. The argument advanced amongst others by Mr. Datar is that the expression "relating to trade and commerce" appearing in the said Anicle must be interpreted liberally so as to include not only E11try 42 in List 1, Entry 26 in List 11 and Entry 33 in List 111 but also F other entries that empower the Parliament and State Legislatures to levy taxes. By that logic it was contended that levy of taxes is also treated as a restriction within the contemplation of Part XIIl making it necessary for the legislature to resort to Article 304(b) and the proviso for doing so. There is in our opinion no merit in that contention also. G I 18. We say so for two precise reasons. Firstly because entries relating to Trade and commerce by themselves are not sufficient to empower the legislature to levy taxes. The constitutional scheme is such that a taxing entry is distinct from other entries and a levy of tax is possible only ifthere is an ent1y which authorizes the competent legislature f-1

HNDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF 1-!ARYANA 279 [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!] to levy the same. This distinction has for long been maintained by judicial pronouncements of this Court. We may in this regard refer to M.P. V. Sunderaramier's case (supra) where this Cou11 has declared:

"51. Jn List I. Entries l to 81 mentio11 the several matters over which Parliament has authority tu legislate. Entries 82 tu Y2 enumerate the laxes which could he imposed by a law of Parliame11t. An examination rd· these two groups of Entries shows that while the main su~ject of legislation .figures in the first group, a flLr in relation thereto is separately mentioned in the second. Thus. c Entry 22 in List I is "Railways". and Entry o9 is "Terminal taxes on goods or passengers. carried by railway. sea or air: taxes on railway fares and fi"eights ". if Entry 22 is to be construed as involving laxes to be imposed, then Enny 8Y would be supe1jl11ous. Entry ./ 1 D mentions "Trade and commerce with foreign countries: import and export across customs frontiers". lf these expressions are to be interpreted as including duties to be levied in re:,pect of that trade and commerce, then Entry 83 which is "Duties of customs including export duties" would be wholly redundant. Entries 43 and 44 E relate to inc01poralion, regulation and winding up of corporations. Entry 85 provides separa/ely for corporation tax. Turning to List fl, Enlries I lo ././form one group mentioning the su~jects on which the Stutes could legislate. Entries ./5 tu 63 in that List.form another group, and they deal with laxes. En11y 18, for example, is "Land" and E11t1y 45 is "Land revenue". E111ry 23 is "Regula/ion of mines" and Entry 50 is "Tuxes on mineral rights". The above analysis - and ii is not exhaustive of the Entries in the Lists - leads lo the inference that taxation is not intended to be comprised in the main subject in which it might on an extended construction be regarded as included. bu/ is treated as a distinct matter for purposes of'/egislative competence. And this distinclion is also manifest in the language o( H

280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A Article 2./8, clauses (1) and 0) and of Entrv 97 i11 List I of the Constitution. Construing Emn· ./2 in the light of'the above scheme, it is difficult lo resist the c.:om:lusiu11 that the power of Parliament tu legislate 011 i11ter-Sta/e trade and commerce under Entrv ./2 dues not include a power to impose a tax un sales i11 the course uf such trade and commerce.'' xxx xxx xxx

55. To sum up: (1) Entry 5./ is successor to E11t1:i: ./8 in the Govemment of India Act, and it would be legitimate to construe it as including tax 011 inter-State sales unless, there is anything repug11a111 lo it in the Co11stitutio11 and there is 11011e wch. (2) Under the scheme of the Entries in the Lists, taxation is reRarded as a distinct maller and is separatelv set out. D .119. The above pronouncement is, in our opinion, the correct enunciation of the legal position in the light whereof it is difficult to appreciate how entries relating to trade and commerce could be understood to be including levy of taxes also. That apart, once taxes are held to be outside Part XIII for the reason that we have already set out earlier. there is no way we can bring them back into that Part by a tenuous interpretation or understanding of Article 303. As explained by us earlier, Article 303 is an exception to Article 302. inasmuch as it limits the power conceded to the Parliament under Article 302 to impose restrictions on freedom of Trade. commerce and intercourse in public interest. The power exercised by Article 302 cannot be so exercised as to give preference to one state over another except under a situation covered by Article 303(2) namely situation arising from scarcity of goods in any part of the territory of India. We cannot add to this Article any artificially extended meaning the ingenuity of the bar in coining any such interpretation notwithstanding.

120. Relying upon the decision in Mudaliar'~· case (supra) it was argued on behalf of the assessee that this Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Central State Tax Act on the ground that such a tax was in public interest within the contemplation of Article 302 H

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 281

LT. S. THAKUR, CJl] of the Constitution oflndia, hence, validly leviable. This, according to the learned counsel, implied that the tax was recognised as a restriction which could be levied only if found to be in public interest as stipulated in Article 302. We have no difficulty in rejecting that contention. ln Mudaliar 's case, this Court was bound by and followed the pronouncement of the larger bench inAtiabari's case holding that taxes could also be restrictions on free trade and commerce if they directly and immediately impeded their free flow. We have, in the preceding pa11 of this judgment, held that view to be legally unsustainable on a proper construction of the provision of Pa11 Xlll and the Constitutional scheme. Once the premise on which Atiabari '.~ case was decided is held to be !lawed, Mudaliar that simply followed the ratio of that decision cannot c stand scrutiny. The argument that Central Sales Tax was valid in terms of Article 302 as such a tax was in public interest becomes academic if taxes are held to be outside the purview of Part Xlll. This incidentally will be true in respect of every other pronouncement where benches of smaller strength have dealt with similar other legislations and taken a D view following the ratio in Atiabari'.1· case.

121. We may at this stage deal with yet another contention urged on behalf of the assesses who argued that while Article 304(a) forbids discriminatory fiscal legislation in respect of goods coming from another state there was no provision which prevented the States from levying discriminatory taxes within its territorial limits. The argument was that the absence of any provision against discriminatory taxation within a State must be understood to mean that taxes would generally be restrictions and unkss the States take recourse to A11icle 304(b) they cannot levy such ta\ cs upon trade and commerce within their tenitorial limits. The argument is, in our view, more in despair than substantial. lt is true that Part Xlll does not in tenns forbid the levy of discriminatory taxes on goods produced within the States but the fact that there is no such prohibition does not necessarily mean that if such discriminatory taxation does indeed take place the same is constitutionally pennissible. Whether or not there is hostile discrimination between goods from one part of the State and those from another part is a matter which will have to be judged on a case to case basis and on the touchstone of Article 14. Having said that we need to remind ourselves that Patt Xlll of the Constitution was aimed at addressing the mischief arising from fiscal and other barriers which the princely states had imposed and which H

282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A gravely impeded free trade and commerce. The Constituent Assembly Debates show that framers of the Constitution were concerned with the removal of such barriers. Discrimination intra-State in terms of levy of taxes was never considered to be a challenge for presumably the Constituent Assembly never considered the same to be a real possibility necessitating a specific provision prohibiting levy of discriminatory intra- B State taxes. J 22. On behalf of the assessees-dealers, it was next argued that levy of entry tax on import of goods from outside the local area in the State will be pl'!' se discriminatory if goods so imported or similar are not c produced or manufactured within the State. That is, argued the learned counsel, because the levy will fall unequally thereby violating the guarantee against discrimination contained inA11icle 304(a). We have no difficulty in rejecting that submission as well. The reason is obvious. Article 304(a), in om opinion, strikes at discriminato1y taxation implying thereby that the levy falls unequally as between goods produced or manufactured within D the State and those being imported from outside. The essence of the guarantee in Article 304(a) lies in the same or similar goods being treated similarly in the mntter of taxation. The question, therefore, is whether that guarantee is violated if the goods subjected to levy of entry tax are not produced or manufactured within the Stnte levying the tax. Our E answer is in tbe negative. This is because there is no question of any discrimination if goods from outside the State are not at a disadvantage vis-a-i:is goods produced or manufactured within that State. It is true that a levy on goods that are not produced or manufactured in the State is likely to make such goods costlier but that is not enough for the levy to be considered unconstitutional. A responsive Government aware of the F needs of its constituents will be under tremendous pressure to keep such taxes low enough for its constituents to be able to afford the same. Democratic processes and pressures within the system of governance that we have will itself take care of any abe1Tation in this regard. What is absolutely clear, however, is that A11icle 304( a) will not frown at a G levy simply because same or similar goods as are taxed are not produced or manufactured in the State. Reliance upon the decision in Kalyani Stores AIR 1966 SC 1686 does not, in our opinion, help the assessees. The majority judgment in that case looked at Article 304( a) as the source of power to levy a tax or duty. We have in the earlier parts of the judgment explained that the source of power to levy taxes/duties lies in H

JINDAL STAINLESS ITD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 283

[T. S. THAKUR, CJI]

Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution read with the entries in the A three lists contained in Schedule VII. A1ticle 304(a), in that view, only places a constitutional restriction on the power to levy taxes or duties while recognizing the availability of such powers to the State legislatures. The restrictions as explained by us in the earlier paras to levy taxes/ duties is confined to levy of discriminatory taxes and duties alone. To B the extent, Kalyani Stores takes the view that the power to levy taxes is traceable to Article 304(a) the decision, in our opinion. is not sound nor is it correct to say that since goods being taxed are not produced in the State, the power to levy a tax gets obliterated.

123. Appearing for some of the assessees Mr. Venk.atraman argued c that the Central Sales Tax Act was a classic example of the Union exercising its power under A1ticle 302 of Part XIII. He contended that the restrictions so imposed signify that tax and restrictions are synonymous within the contemplation of part XIII.

124. The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was enacted pursuant to D the Sixth Amendment Act, 1956 whereby taxes on sale and purchase of goods in the course of inter-state trade and commerce were expressly brought within the purview of the legislative competence of Parliament. This included the power to impose restrictions upon the power of the State legislature insofar as levy of taxes of sale or purchase of goods of special importance is concerned. Entry 92-A added by the Sixth E Amendment Act 1956 empowered the Parliament to levy taxes on the sale and purchase of the goods other than newspapers in the course of trade and commerce. Entry 54 of the State List by the same amendment was redrawn to make the taxes on the sale and purchase of goods subject to Entry 92-A of List I. The two entries read as under:

"'92-A. Taxes 011 the sale or purchase of good1· other than newspapers, where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of imer-State trade or commerce. G

54. Taxes 011 the sale or purchase of goodv other than 11ev1"spapers, suhjecr to the provisions of Enny 92-A of List-I. ..

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A 125. The States' power it is evident is made subservient to the powers of the Parliament under Entry 92-A. Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, therefore, has oveniding effect vis-a-vis any State Law authorizing imposition of taxes on sale/purchase of declared goods. Seen in the above perspective, Parliament has limited the legislative power of the State insofar as taxes on declared goods are concerned. We find it B difficult to read into such restrictions the meaning sought to be drawn by the learned counsel that taxes themselves are restrictions within the comprehension of Part Xlll. The imposition ofrestrictions on the State's power of taxation in regard to declared goods is not, in our opinion, suggestive of taxes themselves being restrictions for purposes of Part c Xlll of the Constitution. Not only that, Article 286(3) provides the source of power for the Parliament to impose any restriction on the State authority to levy a tax on goods of special iniportance declared by Parliament. Article 286 (3) reads as :

]) "28().Restriction as to imposition of tax on the sale or purchase f~( goods: (I) ... ,

(2) "" E (3) Any law of a State shall. in so far as it imposes. or authorises the imposition of.- (a) a rax 011 the sale or purchase of goods declared hy Parliament hy Im;: to he o{ special importance in inter-State trade or commerce; or (b) a tax on the sale or purchase of good>, !wing a tax o{ the nature referred to in ·sub-clause (h), suh clause (c) or suh-clause (d) o{ clause (29A) of artide 366, G he suhject to such restrictions and conditions in regard to the svsrem of levy, rates and other incidents of the tax as Parliament made hy law speci{y. "

JINDAL STAINLESS IJ'D. v. STA!'E OF HARYANA 285 IT. S. THAKUR, CJI]

126. In the light of what we have said above, we answer Question A No. l in the negative and declare that a non-discriminatory tax does not per se constitute a restriction on the right to free trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed under Article 301. Decisions taking a contrary view in Atiabari'.1· case (supra) followed by a series of later decisions shall, therefore, stand overruled including the decision in Automobile B Transport (supra) declaring that taxes generally are restrictions on the freedom of trnde, commerce and intercourse but such of them as are compensatory in nature do not offend Article 30 I. f,esultantly decisions of his Court in Jindal Stainless Limited(2) and anr. v. State of llmyana and ors. (2006) 7 sec 241 shall also stand overruled. c

127. Re. Question No.2 ln view of our answer to Question No. I, Question No.2 does not arise for consideration.

128. Re. Question No.3 D In tlie light of what we have said in Question Nos. I and 2, this question also does not survive for consideration.

129. Re. Question No.4 This question touching the constitutional validity of the impugned State enactments can be split into two parts. The first part which can be briefly dealt with at the outset is whether the constitutional validity of the impLigncd legislations has to be tested by reference to both Articles 304(a) and 304(b) as contended by learned counsel for the asses sees or only by reference to Article 304(a) as argued by the States. lu the light of what we have said while dealing with question No. I we have no hesitation in holding that Article 304(b) does not deal with taxes as restrictions. At the risk of repetition, we may say that restrictions refe1Ted to in Article 304(b) are non-fiscal in nature. Constitutional validity of any taxing statute has, therefore, to be tested only on the anvil of A1iicle 304(a) and if the law is found to be non-discriminatory, it can be declared to be constitutionally valid without the legislation having to go through the test or the process envisaged by Article 304(b ). Should, however, the statute fail the test of non-discrimination under Article 304(a) it must be struck down for the same caimot be sustained even if it had gone through the process stipulated by Article 304(b). That is because what is H ....

2R6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 l 6] JO S.C.R.

constitutionally impermissible in terms of Article 304(a) cannot be validated and sanctioned through the medium of Article 304(b ). Suffice i1 to say that a fiscal statute shall be open to challenge only under A1iicle 304(a) of the Constitution without being subjected to the test of Article 304(b) either in terms of the existence of public interest orreasonableness of the levy. 13

130. That brings us to the second part of question No.4 viz. whether the impugned State enactments violate Article 304(a) of the Constitution. That aspect will necessmily involve a careful reading of the impugned enactments and a proper appreciation of the scheme underlying the same. c While we have at some length heard learned coun~el for the parties on th;it ;ispect, we do not propose to deal with all the dimensions of that challenge based on Article 304(a) except two of them that were argued at great length by learned counsel for the parties. The first of these two dimensions touches upon the State's power to promote industrial development by granting incentives including those in the nature of D exemptions or reduced rates of levy on goods locally produced or manufactured. On behalf of the assesses it was contended that grant of exemptions and incentives in favour oflocally manufactured/produced goods is also one fo1111 of insidious disc1imination which was impe1111issible in terms of article 30<l(a) for such exemptions and incentives had the effect of putting goods from another State at a disadvantage. Relying upon a decision of two-Judge Bench of this Cowi in Slzree A1alzavir Oil Mills and Anr. v. State of Ja11111111 and Kashmir and Ors. (1996) 2 sec 39 it was argued that exemptions in favour of locally produced goods from payment of tilxes was constitutionally impermissible and offensive to miicle 304(a). That was a case where the State Government F had totally exempted goods manufactured by small scale indusnies within the State from payment of sales tax even when the sales tax payable by other industries including manufacturers of goods in adjoining States was in the range of8%. This exemption was questioned by manufacturers of edible oils from other States on the ground that the same was G discriminatory and violative of Articles 301and304 of the Constitution.

131. This Court. held that the exemption given to manufacturers of edible oil was total and unconditional, while producers of edible oil from industries in adjoining states had to pay sales tax@ 8%. Grant of exemption to local oil producing units thereby put the former at a H

JINDAL STAJNLESS ITD. v. STATE or HARYANA 287 [T. S. THAKUR. CJ!] disadvantage. I-laving said that, the Court exercised its powers under A Article 142 of the Constitution and struck down the exemption by moulding the reliefs to suit the exigencies of the situation. The Court no doubt noticed a three-Judge Bench decision in Video Electronics vs. State of P1miab (1990) 3 SCC 87 in which notifications issued by the States of U.P and Punjab providing for exemptions to new units B established in certain areas for a prescribed period of 3 to 7 years were assailed as discriminatory. The challenge to the exemption was in that case also based on the alleged violation of Articles 301 and 304. This Court however upheld the notifications in question on the ground that the same related to a specific class of industrial units and the benefit under the same was admissible for a limited period of time only. The c Court observed that if an overwhelmingly large number of local manufacturers ''ere subject to sales tax, it could not be said that the local manufactures were favored as a class against outsiders. Adverting to the decision in Video Electronics (supra) this Court in Malrnvir (supra) held the same to be distinguishable on the ground D that the Punjab and U .P notifications were qualitatively different from the one issued by the Government ofJammu and Kashmir in as much as while the former benefitted only specified u11its and limited the benefit to a specified period, the latter was not subject to any such limitations. This declared the Court resulted in discrimination vis-a-vis. outside goods. E What is important-- is that in Video Electronics (supra) this Court recognized the difference between differentiation and discrimination and held that every differentiation is not discrimination. This Com1 noted that the word discrimination was not used in Article 14 as it has been used in Article 16. Article 303 and Article 304 (a). The use of the word f in .\04 (a) observed this Court involved an element of "intentional and unfavorable bias". So long as there was no such bias evident from the measure adopted by the state, mere grant of exemption-- or incentives aimed at supporting local industries in their growth, development and progress did not constitute discrimination. G 1:12. We respectfully agree with the line of reasoning adopted in Video Electronics (supra). The expression "discrimination" has not been defined in the Constitution though the same has fallen for interpretation of this Court on several occasions. The earliest of these decisions was rendered in Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra AIR H

288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12016] I 0 S.C.R.

A 1952 SC 123, where a seven-Judge Bench of this Court held that all legislative differentiation is not necessarily discriminatory. Relying upon the meaning of the expression in Oxford Dictionary, Patanjali Sastri, CJ (as His Lordship then was) explained :

n "7. All legislative differentiation is not necessarily discriminatory. Jn fact. the word "discrimination" does not occur in Article 11. The expression "discriminate against" is used in Article I 5(1) and Article 16(2), and it means, according to the Oxford Dictionary, "to make c an adverse distinction with regard to; to distinguish unfavourahly fi·om others". Discrimination thus involves an element of 1mfavourahle hias and it is in that sense that the expression has to be understood in this context. If such bias is disclosed and is based on D any of the grounds mentioned in Articles I 5 and 16, it mav well he that the statute will, without more, incur co11de111natio11 as violating a specific 'constitutional prohihition unless it is saved by one or other of the provisos to those articles. But the position under Article I 4 is different. Equal protection claims under that article r are examined with the presumption that the State action is reasonable and justified. This presumption of constirutionality stems from the wide power of classification which the legislature must, of necessit)!. possess in making laws operating differentfcv as regard~ F different groups olperson.1· in order to give effect to its policies ...

133. Fazl Ali .I. in his concurringjudgment explained the concept in the following words: G

"J 9. I think that a distinction should be drawn he tween "'discrimination v.-ithout reason" and "discrimination 1vith reason". The whole doctrine ol classification is H ... '··

.JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 289 [T. S. THAKUR, CJI] hased on this distinction and 011 the well-known fact that the cirrwnstance.1· which govern one set of persons or ohjects may not necessarily be the same as those governing another set of persons or objects, so that the question of unequal treatment does not really arise as hetiveen persons governed by different conditions and different sets of circumstances. 711e main objection to the /Yest Bengal Act was that it permitted discri111i11alio11 '\vithout reason" or without any rational basis. " c Any challenge to a fiscal enactment on the touchstone of Article 304(a) must in our opinion be tested by the same standard as in Kathi\· case (supra). The Court ought to examine whether the differentiation made is intended or inspired by an element of unfavourable bias in favour of the goods produced or manufactured in the State as against those D imported from outside. lf the answer be in the affirmative, the differentiation would fall foul of Article 304(a) and may tantamount to discrimination. Conversely, if the Court were to find that there is no such element of intentional bias favouring the locally produced goods as against those from outside, it may have to go further and see whether the differentiation would be suppo1ted by valid reasons. in the words ofFazl E Ali, J. discrimination without reason would be unconstitutional whereas discrimination with reason may be legally acceptable. ln Video Electro11ic 's case, this Court noted that the differentiation made was supported by reasons. This Comt held that if economic unity of lndia is one of the Constitutional aspirations and if attaining and maintaining such unity is a Constitutional goal, such unity and objectives can be achieved only if all parts of the Country develop equally. There is, if we may say so, with respect considerable merit in that line of reasoning. A State which is economically and industrially backward on account of several factors must have the opportunity and the freedom to pursue and achieve development in a measure equal to other and more fortunate regions of the country which have for historical reasons, developed faster and thereby acquired an edge over its less fortunate country cousins. Economic unity from the point of view of such underdeveloped or developing states will be an illusion if they do not have the opporttmity or the legal entitlement 1-l

290 SCPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] IO S.C.R.

A to promote industries within their respective territories by granting incentives and exemptions necessary for such growth and development. The argument that power to grant exemption cannot be used by the State even in case where such exemptions are manifestly intended to promote industrial growth or promoting industrial activity has not appealed to us. The power to grant exemption is a part of the sovereign power to B levy taxes which cannot be taken away from the States that are otherwise competent to impose taxes and duties. The conceptual foundation on which such exemptions and incentives have been held permissible and upheld by this Court in Video :v case is, in our opinion,juristically sound and legally unexceptionable. Video Electronics, therefore, conectly states c the legal position as regards the approach to be adopted by the Courts while examining the validity oflevies. So long as the differentiation made by the States is not intended to create an unfavourable bias and so long as the differentiationis intended to benefit a distinct class of industries and the life of the benefit is limited in terms of period. the benefit must D be held to flow from a legitimate desire to promote industries within its territory. Grant of exemptions and incentives in such cases must be deemed to have been inspired by considerations which in the larger context help achieve the Constitutional goal of economic unity.

134. Seen in the above context the decision in Mahabir Oil'.\· E case is indeed distinguishable in as much as the manufactures of edible oil were exempt totally and unconditionally while other manufacturers from outside the State were not so exempt. Whether or not the impugned enactments in the present batch of cases satisfy the tests referred to above and elaborated in Video Electronics case is a matter on which we do not propose to express any opinion for that aspect is best left open to be considered by the regular benches hearing these matters after the reference is disposed off.

135. The other dimension of what according to the assesses amounts to discrimination lies in goods coming from outside the State for sale, consumption or use within a local area of another State being subjected to an entry tax at a rate different from the one at which goods manufactured within the taxing State are taxed. We are not getting into the substantive or machinery provisions of the State enactments that levy entry tax 011 goods entering a local area. This can be done more appropriately by the bench hearing the matter after the reference has l-1

JINDAL STAlNLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 291

292 SUPREME COURT REPORI'S [2016] 10 S.C.R.

"343 ... . Jn the matter of taxation lav.,s, th.e Court permits a grear laritude to the discretion to rhe legislature. The Srate is allowed to pick and choose districrs, ohjects, persons, 111ethod1· and even rate fhr raxation if it does so reasonah/\'. The Courts view the laws relating to B economic activities with greater latitude than other matters. /See Collector of Customs v. Nat hella Sampathu Chell)" and Anr. AIR 1962 SC 316; Khyerhari Tea Company Ltd. and Am: i: State of Assam and Ors. AIR 1961 SC 925; R.K. Garg v. U11io11 of India and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 2138; Gauri Shanker and Ors v. Union c o{ India and Ors. ( 1994) 6 SCC 349 a11d Unio11 of lndia and A111: v. A. Sanyasi Rao and Ors. (1996) 3 sec 465Jetc."

"7 ... 71zou,f!,h a Im\" ex facie appears to treat all that fall within a class alike, if in effect it operates uneven!]' 011 persons or property similarly situated, it may he said that the law offend1· the equality clause. Ir will then he the duty ol the court to scrutinise the effect of the law carefit!I)' to ascertain its real impact on the persons or property similarlv sitllated. Conver.1·el-y: a law may treat persons who appear to he similarly situate differently; hut on investigation they may hefound not to be similarlv situate. fo state it differently, it is not the phraseology of a statute that govems the situation hut the effect of the law thar is decisive. I{ there is equality and un!frmnity H

JINDAL S"IAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 293 [T. S. THAKUR, CJl] within each group, the law will not he condemned as A discriminative, though due to some fortuitous circumstance arising out of" a peculiar situation some included in a class get an advantage over others, so long as they are not singled out for special treatment. Taxation law is not an exception to this doctrine vide B Purshottam Govindji v. B.1\!l. Desai, and Kunnathat Thathuni Moopil Nair v. State ol Kera/a. But in the application of" the principles, the courts, in view of the inherent co111plexity of'fiscal adjustment of" diverse elements, permit a larger discretion to the legislature in the matter of' classification, so long it adheres to the c fimda111ental principles underlying the said doctrine. The power of" the legislature to classi[y is of" "wide range andflexihiliy" so that it can adjust its system of taxation in all proper and reasonahle ways. " D

"8. None of" the circumstances which led this Court to strike down the relevant provisions in the ahovementioned rn10 cases exists in the present case. In 111ehtab '.~ case discriminarion was found to exist because of' the fact that tax was heing levied at the same rate in re.1pect of hoth raw hides and skins as well as dressed hides and skins, even though the price of" dressed hides and skins was much highe1: The position was worse in the case of" Hajee Ahdul Shukoor hecause in that case the sales tax wasfound to have heen charged at a higher rate in respect of" dressed hides and skins than that on the sale of" raw hides and skins in spite of" the fact that H

294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A the price of dressed hides and skin.1· H'as higher than that of mw hides and skins. The position in the present case is material!v different, jiH here the rate of sales tax fi;r mw hides and skins is 3 per cent, ·while that fi;r dressed hides and skins is 1112 per cent. It is plain that B the lower rate of tax in the case of dressed hides and skins has heen prescrihed with a view to off1·et the difference between the higher price of dressed hides and skins and the lower price of raw hides and skins. No material has heen hrought on the record to shm1· that despite the lower rate of sales tax for dressed hides c and skins, the imported hides and skins are heing suhjected to discrimination. 771e onus to show that there would he discrimination between the hides and skins which were purrhased locally in the ·raw form and thereafter tanned and the hides and skins which were I) imported.from other States was upon the appellant. 771e appellant, we find, has failed to discharge such onus.

9. Article 304(a) does not prevent levv of tax on goods: what it prohihit.1· is such levy of tax 011 good1· as would result in discrimination between goody imported.from other States and similar goods manufactured or produced ·within the State. The ohiect is to preve11t discrimi11otio11 against imported goods hy imposing tax on such gooc/.1· at a rate higher than that home hy local good\' since the difference betv\'een the two rates would constiwte a tariff wall or.fiscal harrier and thus impede the fi'ee flow of inter-State trade and commerce. The question as to when the levy of tax would constitute discrimination would depend upon a variety of.factors including the rate of tax and the item of' goods in re.1pect of rhe sale of which it is levied. The scheme of items G 7(a) and 7(h) of the Second Schedule to the State Act is that in case of rmv hides and skins which are purchased local~)' in the State, the levy of tax would he at the rate of 3 per cem ar the point of' last purchase in the State. Whe11 those lncal~v purchased raw hides and skins are H tanned and ure sold locallv as dressed hides and skins.

JINDAL STAINLESS Ll'D. v. STATE or HARYANA 295 [T. S. THAKUR, CJI] no levy ivould he made on such sales as those hides A a11d skins have already been suhjected to local tax at the rate of 3 per cent when they were purchased in raw form. As agai11st that, in the case of hides and skins ivhich have been importedfi'Oln other States in raw.form and are Ihereafter tanned and then sold i11side the State B as dressed hides and skins, the levv of the tax is at the rate of' 1112 per cent at the point of first sale in the State of the dressed hides and ski11s. This levy ca1111ot lie considered to he discriminat01:v as it takes into account the higher price of dressed hides and skins compared to the price of raw hides and ski11s. 'It also c fill'ther takes 11ote of the fact that no tax under the State !let has heen paid in respect of those hides and skins. The legislature, it seems, calculated the price of hides and skins i11 dressed condition tri be double the price of such hides a11d skins in raw state. To ohviate and D prevent any discrimination or differential treatment in the matter of levy of' tax, the legislature there.fore prescrihed a rate of tax for sale of dressed hides and skins which was half of that levied under Item 7(a) in re.1pect of' raw hides and skins. " E

140. In Malwa Bus Service (Private) Ltd. v. State of Puniah mu! others (I 983) 3 SCC 237 this Court held that a difference in the rate of tax by itself cannot be considered to be discriminatory and offensive to the equality clause:

"21. The next submission urged 011 hehalf of' the petitioners is based 011 hficle 14 of' the Constitution. It is contended hy the petitioners that the Act hv levying Rs 35, 000 as the annual fax on a motor vehicle used as G a stage carriage hut only Rs 1500 per yem· on a motor vehicle used as a goods· carrier suffers .ftnm the vice C?f hostile discrimination and is, therefore, liahle to he stmck down. There is no dispute that even a fiscal -,. H

296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.

A legislation is suhject to Article 14 o( . . the Constitution. . But it is well settled that a legislature in order to tax some need not tax all, It can adopt a. reasonable c;lass(ficatio11 of persons and things in imposing tax liahilities. A law of taxation cannot he tem1ed as being B discriminatory hecause different rates of taxation are prr;scrihed in respect of dif(etellf items, provided it is possihle to hold that the said items belong to di.~tinct and separate groups and that there is a reasonable nexr" between the c/ass(fication and the object to he achieved c hy the imposition of dijferellf rates o.f taxation. 171e mere fact. that a tax falls more heavi~v on certain goodv or persons may not result in its invalidity. As observed hy this Court in Klumdige Sham Bhat v. Agricultural lllcome Tax Officer in respect o.f taxation laws, the power of legislature to dlassify good5, things or persons are necessarily 11'ide and flexible so as to enahle it to adi11.1·t its svstem of taxation in all proper and reasonahle ways.. The Co11rts lean more readily in favour of upholding the constitutionality of a taxing law in view of' the wmplexities involved in the .1·ocial and economic life of' the comm11nity. It is one of the duties of a modern legislature to utilise the 111eas11res o.f' taxation i>lfroduced .• hy it for the p11rpo.\'e of achieving maximum social good and one has. to tr11st the wisdom of the /egi.,lature ·in this regard. Unless the jiscal law in q11estion is manjf'estly discriminatory the court sho11ld refrain from striking it down on the ground o.f' discrimination. These are some of'the hroad principles laid down hy this Court ill several of' its decisions and it is unnecessary to /Jurden this judgment with· citations. Applying these principle.< it is seen that stage carriages which travel on an average ahout 260 kilometres every day on a spectfied route or routes with an almost assured quant11m o.l traffic which invariah/y is overcrowded helong to a class distinct and separate from puhlic carriers which earl}· good< on 11ndefined routes. Moreover the puhlic II carrier.\· 111a_\' 1101 he operating eve1:r da)l in the State.

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA 297

[T. S. THAKUR, CJI]

There are also other economic considerations which A distinguish stage carriages and public carriers from each other. The amount of wear and tear caused to the roads by any class of motor vehicles may not always be a determining factor in class!fYing motor vehicles for purposes of taxation. The reasons given by this Court B in GK. Krishnan case for upholding the classification made hetween stage carriages and contract carriages both of which are engaged in carrying passengers are not relevant to the case of a classification made between stage carriages which carry passengers and public carriers which transport goods. The petitioners have c not placed before the court sufficient material to hold that the impugned levy suffers from the vice of discrim"ination on the above ground. "

141. Seen in the context of the above, we are inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the State that so long as the intention behind the grant of exemption/adjustment/credit is to equalize the fall of the fiscal burden on the goods from within the State and those from outside the State such exemption or set off will not amount to hostile discrimination offensive to Article 304(a). Having said that, we leave E open for examination by the regular benches hearing the matters whether the impugned enactment achieve the object of such equalization or lead to a situation that exposes goods from outside the state to suffer any disadvantage vis-a-vis those produced or manufactured in the taxing State. F

142. We must, while parting, mention that learned counsel for the parties had attempted to raise c,ertain other issues like whether the entire State can be treated as a local area and whether entry tax can he levied on goods imported from outside the country. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present reference to address all those issues which are hereby left open to be decided by the regular bench hearing the matter.

143. With that observation the reference is answered. The Registry shall now place the matters before regular benches for an expeditious disposal of the same in the light of what has been observed by us above. H

298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 10 S.C.R.