March 30. M. A. RAHMAN AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) [1962] Motor Spirit-Registration of dealers-If ultra vires the Consti- tution-Constitution of India, Art. r9(r)(g)-The Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation (Andhra Pradesh Extension and Amendment) Act (Andhra Pradesh V of r958)-The Madras Sales of Motor
Spirit Taxation Act (VI of r939) ss. 3 and 4, sub-ss. (I) and (4). The Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act (Mad. VI of 1939) was made applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation (Andhra Pradesh
Extension and Amendment) Act (Andhra Pradesh V of 1958). The purpose and object of the Act was to levy and collect tax on retail sales of motor spirit and the liability for payment was placed upon the person effecting the sale.
In order that the State may know the persons from whom tax was due s. 4(1) provided for registration of dealers and s. 4(6) provided for the suspension of such registration in the event of some con- traventions. All that any one who wanted to carry on business had to do was to ask for registration which he would get under the rules. The petitioners who were dealers in motor spirit in Hyderabad filed writ petition challenging the provisions of the said s. 4 of sub-ss. (1) and (6) on the ground that such registra- tion and cancellation were not reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of the petitioners to carry on business under Art. lg(r)(g) of the Constitution particularly as the cancellation of registration resulted in the total extinction of the business and was an unreasonable restriction and prayed that sub-ss. (1) and (4) of s. 4 of the Act and r. I4 framed under s. 26 of the Act be declared ultra vires.
Held, that the provisions of s. 4(1) of the Act were consti- tutional. Registration of dealers under s. 4(1) was an eminently reasonable provision in order to carry' out the object of the Act, the purpose behind the registration being that those on whom the liability to pay tax under s. 3 of the Act lay, were known to the State, so that it could realise the tax from them.
The provision of s. 4(6) for cancellation of registration for failure to pay the tax or for fraudulently evading the payment of it was an additional coercive process which was expected to be immediately effective and enabled the State to realise its revenue. The fact that in some cases restriction might result in the extinction of the business of a dealer would not by itself t
make the provision as to cancellation of. registration an un- reasonable restriction on the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. t9(1)(g) of the Constitution. Narendra Kumar v. The Union of India, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 375, referred to.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition Nos. 145 and 149 to 158 of 1959. Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Sardar Bahad,ur, for the petitioners.
O. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, R. Gana- pathy Iyer and T. M. Sen, for the respondents. 1961. March 30. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :A1. A. Rahman v. The State of
Andhra Pradesh WANCHOO, J.-These eleven petitions raise a com- Wanchoo J. mon point and will be disposed of together. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. The
petitioners are dealers in motor spirit in Hyderabad. In 1949 the Hyderabad Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Regulation, No. XXIV of 1358 J!'asli (hereinafter called the Regulation) was passed and the petitioners
were registered as retail dealers of petroleum products under the Regulation. In 1957 the petitioners and others filed writ petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh questioning the validity of the Regulation.
There was also a prayer for stay of the levy and collection of the tax and the High Court ordered that all further proceedings in the matter of levy, demand and collection of tax including cancellation of registra-
tion certificate and threatened attachment of property and the launching of criminal proceedings in pursu- ance of the Regulation be stayed. The petitioners allege that on this stay being granted by the High
Court, they thought that s. 3 of the Regulation was suspended during the period of stay and therefore they stopped collecting the tax from consumers. While these petitions were pending in the High Court,
the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation (Andhra Pradesh Extension and Amendment) Act, No. V of 1958 (hereinafter called the Act), was passed by which [1962] '96' the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, No. VI
M.A. Rahman of 1939 was applied to Andhra Pradesh with some v. modifications and the Regulation was repealed. This The State of Act, like the Regulation, had provisions for registra- Andhra Pradesh tion of dealers and in consequence fresh registration certificates were issued to the petitioners as well as to
Wanchoo J. all other dealers in the State. In August 1958 the peti- tions challenging the validity of the Regulation were dismissed. In September 1958 notices were issued to the petitioners informing them that they had failed to sub-
mit returns showing sales of motor spirit from March 1957 to March 1958 and they were required to submit returns within seven days, failing which best judgment assessments would be made under the relevant provi-
sion of the Regulation. The petitioners maderepre- sentations against this order and their main case ·was that they had not collected any tax from consumers during this period and it would therefore be harsh to
demand tax from them in the circumstances. There- upon it is said that best judgment assessments were made against the petitioners and they were required to pay the tax, though liberty to pay in instalments wa~
granted to them for this purpose. As however~ ~l;ie petitioners failed to deposit the tax even in instal- ments, the. registration certificate of . one of the petitioners was cancelled and other petitioners were
threatened with cancellation of .. their registration certificates about October 1959: · Consequently, the present petitions were filed soon after challenging the provisions of the Act relating to cancellation .of regis:
tration certificates on the ground that such. canc~lla_ tion was not a reasonable restriction on the funda- mental rights of the petitioners to carry . on business under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The petitio-
ners therefore pray for a declaratioif that sub-ss. (1) and (6) of s. 4 of the Act aud, t. 14 purported to be framed thereunder are ultra vires as being violative. of Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and for consequen_-
tial orders against the respondents, namely, the Sta~!l of Andhra Pradesh and its officers, from enforcing ~he said provisions. The petitions have been opposed by the respondents f
and their case is that the provisions in question are reasonable restrictions on the right guaranteed under M.A. Rahman Art. 19 ( 1) (g) and are therefore perfectly valid and v. constitutional. The respondents also say that the
The State of allegation of the petitioners that they did not collect A ndhra Pradesh the tax during the period of the stay orders from Wanchoo ]. consumers is false. In order to decide the constitutionality of the provi-
sions which have.been challenged it is necessary to look into the purpose and object of the Act in which those provisions appear. The Act was passed in order to levy and collect tax on retail sales of motor spirit in
the interest of the general revenues of the State. Section 2 of the Act is the definition section. Section 3 is the charging section and provides the rates at which the tax is to be levied on all retail sales of motor spirit. Section 4 (1) wpich is being challenged is in these
terms:- "No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, carry on business in motor spirit as an importer or as a wholesale or retail dealer at any place in the State unless he has been registered as such under
this Act." Sub-sections (2) and (3) make certain ancillary provi- sions and sub.8. (4) is in these terms:- "Registration may be made subject to such condi- tions, if any, as may be prescribed including in the
case of an applicant for registration as a retail dealer, the making of such deposit or the furnishing of such security as the registering authority may consider necessary to ensure the due payment of the
tax which may from time to time be payable by him." ·sub-section (5) is unnecessary for our purpose, and sub-s. (6) is in these terms:- "Any registration under sub-section (1) may be
suspended or cancelled by such authority, for such reasons, and in such manner, as may be prescribed." It is hot necessary to refer to other sections which make various provisions necessary for the enforcement
of the Act till we come to s. 26 which gives power to M.A. Rahman v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Wanchoo ]. [1962] the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. Rule 14 which has been attacked
has been made under the power conferred under s. 26 and it is not being disputed that if the main provisions contained in s. 4 are constitutional, the rule is within the ambit of the Act and the rule making power of
the State Government. It will be clear from this analysis of the impugned provisions of the Act that the purpose and object of the Act is to levy and collect tax for purposes of the
general revenues of the State and the liability for payment is placed under s. 3 upon the person effecting the sale. He is required by s. 5 of the Act to keep books of account in the prescribed form and to submit
to the Commercial Officer and to such other officers as may be prescribed, a return in such form, containing such particulars and at such intervals, as may be prescribed. Along with the return,' under s. 6 he is
required to pay the amount of tax due in respect of the motor spirit sold by him in retail during the pre- ceding month according to the return. In order there- fore that the State may have a check on the person
from whom the tax is dues. 4(1) provides for registra- tion of dealers who carry on the business in motor spirit. Without such registration it would be impossi- ble for the State to know the persons who are selling
motor spirit and from whom the tax is due. The pro- vision therefore under s. 4(1) for registration of dealers is an eminently reasonable provision in order to carry out the object of the Act, namely, the levy and collec-
tion of this tax for purposes of the State. It is really ,, no restriction on carrying on business in motor spirit; any one who carries on such business is free to do so and all that he has to do is to ask for registration,
which he will get subject to the provisions of sub-s. (4). That sub-section has not been challenged in these petitions and therefore we proceed on the assumption that it is constitutional. It follows therefore that all
that anyone who wants to carry on business in motor spirit has to do is to ask for registration which he will get under the rules, and the purpose behind registra- tion is that those on whom the liability to pay tax ,
t • ·' ' under s. 3 of the Act lies, are known to the State so that it may realise the tax from them. The challenge M. A. Rahman therefore to the constitutionality of s. 4(1) must fail.
v. Then we turn to sub-s. (6), which provides that any The State of registration under sub-s. (1) may be suspended or can- Andhrn Pradesh celled by such authority, for such reasons, and in such
manner, as may be prescribed. The main attack of Wan,hoo J. the petitioners is on this sub-section. They contend that this sub-section authorises the State to cancel a registration. The effect of such cancellation read with
sub-s. (1) is that a person whose registration is cancel- led cannot carry on business in motor spirit as he was doing before the cancellation. It is said that cancel- lation results in the total extinction of the business of
the person whose registration is cancelled and thus the provision as to cancellation is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on business. There is no doubt that if a registration is cancelled
under sub-s. (6) it will not be possible for the person whose registration is so cancelled to carry on his busi- ness in motor spirit. Rule 14 provides conditions under which the registration may be cancelled and we are in
the present case concerned with two of them, namely, where the holder of a• registration certificate (a) fails to pay the tax or any other amount payable under the Act and (b) fraudulently evades the payment of
the tax. The reasonableness of this provision as to cancella- tion of registration certificate has to be judged in the backgrotmd of what we have already said about the purpose of the levy and its liability on the seller. It
is true that there are other provisions in the law for realisation of public dues from those who default in making payments; but generally speaking cancellation of registration in cases like these is one more method
of compelling payment of tax which is due to the State. Collection of revenue is necessary in order that the administration of the State may go on smoothly in the interest of the general public. The State has
therefore armed itself with one more coercive method in order to realise the tax in such cases. It is true 1y6r [1962] that cancellation of registration may result in a dealer being unable to carry on the business, but the same
v. result may even follow from the application of other The state of coercive processes for realisation of dues from a trader, M.A. Rahman Andhra Pradesh for his assets may be sold off to pay the arrears of tax and he may thereafter be not in a position to carry on
the business at all. Therefore the provision for can- cellation of registration for failure to pay the tax or Wanchoo ]. for fraudulently evading the payment of it is an addi- tional coercive process which is expected to be imme-
diately effective and enables the State to realise its revenues which are necessary for carrying on the administration in the interest of the general public. The fact that in some cases restrictions may result in
the extinction of the business of a dealer would not by itself make the provision as to cancellation of re- gistration an unreasonable restriction on the funda- mental right guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(g). We may in
this connection refer to NarendraKumar v. The Union of India('), where it was held that: "the word 'restriction' in Arts. 19(5) and 19(6) of the Constitution includes cases of 'prohibition' also;
that where a restriction reaches the stage of total restraint of rights special care has to be taken by the Court to see that the test of reasonableness is satisfied by considering the question in the back-
ground of the facts and circumstances under which the order was made, taking into account the nature of the evil that was sought to be remedied by such law, the ratio of the harm caused to individual citi-
zens by the proposed remedy, the beneficial effect reasonably expected to result to the general public, and whether the restraint caused by the law was more than was necessary in the interests of the
general public." Applying these tests we are of opinion that the can- cellation of registration will be justified even though it results in the extinction of business as such cancel-
lation is in respect of a tax meant for the general revenues of the State to carry on the administra.tion in the interest of the gener~l public. (•) [•96<>l • s.c.R. 375. Besides, there is another consideration to which we
may advert in the end, though even otherwise the M.A. Rahman cancellation is justified. Though there is no provision v. in the Act or the Rules specifically authorising the The state of
seller to pass on the tax to the consumer, what Andhra Pradesh actually happens is that the seller includes the tax in the price and thus passes it on to the consumer. Then wanchoo f.
in his turn the seller pays the tax to the State. In effect by thus passing on the tax to the consumer through the price, the dealer has already collected the tax. Therefore the compulsion of payment which
arises because of the provision for cancellation of regis- tration is under the circumstances justified and there is no reason why he should fail to pay it to the State or evade payment thereof fraudulently. The fault for
failure to pay the tax or fraudulent evasion in pay- ment thereof lies in the circumstances entirely on the dealer and he cannot be heard to complain that can- cellation of registration in such a case is a dispropor-
tionate restriction on the right to carry on business which cannot be justified in the interests of the general public. Under the circumstances we are of opinion that the ratio of Narendra Kumar's case(') applies fully to the
present case and the provision contained in sub-s. (6) of s. 4 is a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Art. 19(6) of the Constitution. The petitions therefore fail and are hereby dismissed with costs; there will
be one set of hearing costs only. Petitions dismissed. (1) [1962] S.C.R. 375.