Equivalent Citation : AIR 1962 SC 1621

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Petition No. 79 of 1959

Decided On: 28.04.1961

Appellants:Smt. Ujjam Bai

Vs.
Respondent:State of Uttar Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.K. Sarkar , J.L. Kapur , J.R. Mudholkar , K. Subba Rao , M. Hidayatullah
, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar , S.K. Das and T.L. Venkatarama Aiyyar , JJ.

Subject: Constitution

Catch Words

Mentioned IN

Relevant Section:
Constitution of India - Article 32; Constitution of India - Article 265

Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order V Rule 2; Constitution of India - Article
14, Constitution of India - Article 19, Constitution of India - Article 31, Constitution of
India - Article 32, Constitution of India - Article 265; Supreme Court Rules, 1950 -
Order V-A, Rule 2; Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 - Section 4(1)

Cases Overruled / Reversed:

Kailash Nath and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (MANU/SC/0136/1957)

Disposition:
Petition Dismissed

Authorities Referred:
Willoughby's Constitution of the United States, Second Edn, Vol. 3; Halsbury's Laws of
England, 3rd Edn.

Citing Reference:

Discussed

61

Distinguished

Mentioned
26

Case Note:

Constitution of Indian - Article 19(1) (g), 32-Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act
1948 - S 4(I) (b) - The enforcement of fundamental right and assessment by
sales Tax Officer under a valid act - Is it open to challenge on the sole ground
of misconstruction of Act
JUDGMENT

T.L. Venkatarama Aiyyar, J.

1. The petitioner is a partner in a firm called Messrs. Mohan Lal Hargovind Das, which
carries on business in the manufacture and sale of biris in number of States, and is
dealer registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act 15 of 1948 with its head office at
Allahabad. In the present petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the
petitioner impugns the validity of a levy of sales tax made by the Sales Tax Officer,
Allahabad, by his order dated December 20, 1958.

2. On December 14, 1957, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification

under section 4(1)(b) of the Act exempting from tax, sales of certain goods including
biris, provided that the additional Central Excise duties leviable thereon had been
paid. In partial modification of this notification, the Government issued another
notification on November 25, 1958, exempting from tax unconditionally sales of biris,
both machine made and handmade, with effect from July 1, 1958. The effect of the
two notifications aforesaid taken together is that while for the period, December 14,
1957, to June 30, 1958, the exemption of biris from tax was subject to the proviso
contained in the notification dated December 14, 1957, for the period commencing
from July 1, 1958, it was unconditional and absolute.

3. The petitioner's firm filed its return for the quarter ending June, 1958, disclosing a
gross turnover of Rs. 75,44,633/- and a net turnover of Rs. 111/- representing the
sale proceeds of empty packages, and deposited a sum of Rs. 3.51 n.P. as sales tax
on the latter. On November 28, 1958, the Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad, sent a notice
to the petitioner's firm for assessment of tax on the sale of biris during the period,
April 1, 1958, to June 30, 1958, and on the date of enquiry which was held on
December 10, 1958, the petitioner filed a petition stating that by reason of the
exemption granted under the notification No. ST-4485/X dated December 14, 1957,
no tax was payable on the sale of biris. By his order dated December 20, 1958, the
Sales Tax Officer rejected this contention. He observed :

"The exemption envisaged in this notification applied to dealers in respect of

Biris, provided that the additional Central Excise duties leviable thereon from the
closing of business on December 13, 1957, have been paid on such goods. The
assessee paid no such Excise duties. Sales of Biris by the assessee are,
therefore, liable to sales tax."
4. Against this order, there was appeal (Appeal No. 441 of 1959) to the Court of the
Judge (Appeals), Sales Tax, Allahabad, who, by his order dated May 1, 1959,
dismissed the same on the ground that the exemption from sale tax under the
notification related "to such classes of goods only on which the Additional Central
Excise Duty was leviable." Under section 10 of the Act, a person aggrieved by an order
in appeal might take it up on revision before the Revising Authority, and under
section 11, the assessee has a right to require that any question of law arising out of
the order of assessment be referred to the opinion of the High Court. The Petitioner
did not take any proceedings under the Act against the order in appeal dated May 1,
1959, and that has become final.

5. While Appeal No. 441 of 1959 was pending, the petitioner also filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution a petition in the High Court of Allahabad, for a writ of
certiorari to quash the assessment order dated December 20, 1958. That was
dismissed on January 27, 1959, by the learned Judges on the ground that, as the
assessee could contest the validity of the order in appropriate proceedings under the
Act, and as, in fact, an appeal had been filed, there was no ground for exercising the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. In this view, the learned Judges did not
decide the case on the merits, but observed that the "language of the notification
might well be read as meaning that the notification is to apply only to those goods on
which an additional Central excise duty had been levied and paid." The petitioner then
field an application under Article 133 of the Constitution for certificate for appeal to
this Courts against the above order, and that was granted. But instead of pursuing
that remedy, the petitioner has chosen to file the present application under
Article 32 challenging the validity of the order of assessment dated December 20,
1958. It is alleged in the petition that the imposition and levy of tax aforesaid
"amounts to the infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner to carry on
trade and business guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution," and that it is
further "an illegal confiscation of property without compensation and contravenes the
provisions of Article 31 of the Constitution." The prayer in the petition is that this
Courts might be "pleased to issue -

(a) a writ of certiorari or other order in the nature of certiorari quashing

of the Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad, dated 20th December 1958;

(b) a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to realise any
sales tax from the petitioner on the basis of the said order dated 20th
December, 1958."

6. No argument has been addressed to us that the impugned order of assessment is in

contravention of Article 31. Such a contention would be wholly untenable in view of
the decision of this Court in Ramjilal v. Income-tax Officer MANU/SC/0057/1951 :
[1951]19ITR174(SC) and Laxmanappa Hanumantappa v. Union of
India MANU/SC/0033/1954 : [1954]26ITR754(SC) , where it has been held that
when tax is authorised by law as required by Article 265, the levy is not open to
attack under Article 31 of the Constitution. The whole of the argument on behalf of
the petitioner is that the assessment order is unconstitutional as infringing Article
19(1)(g). It is contended in support of this position that the Sales Tax Officer has
misconstrued the notification dated December 14, 1957, in holding that exemption of
tax thereunder is limited to biris on which additional excise duty had been levied, that
as a result of such mid-construction tax has been imposed which is unauthorised, and
that constitutes an interference with the right of the petitioner to carry on business
guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g). That is how the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 32 is invoked.

7. To this, the answer of the respondents is that the Sales Tax Officer had correctly
construed the notification in limiting the exempting to goods on which additional
excise duty had been paid. The respondents further raise a preliminary objection to
the maintainability of this petition on the ground that laws of taxation which are
protected by Article 265 fall outside the purview of Part III of the Constitution, and are
not open to attack as infringing fundamental rights guaranteed therein, and that even
if they are subject to the restrictions in Part III, an order of assessment made by a
tribunal acting judicially under a statute which is intra vires such as the impugned
order dated December 20 1958, does not infringe Article 19(1)(g), and that, further, a
petition under Article 32 is not maintainable for challenging it, even if it is erroneous
on the merits.

8. On these contentions, the points that arise for decision are whether taxation laws
are subject to the limitations imposed by Part III; whether the order of assessment
dated December 20, 1958, is in contravention of Article 19(1)(g); and whether it can
be impugned in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The first question that
falls to be considered is whether the restrictions imposed in Part III of the Constitution
have application to taxation laws. The contention of the respondents is that taxation is
a topic which is dealt with separately in Part XII of the Constitution, that the
governing provision is Article 265, which enacts that no tax shall be levied or collected
except by authority of law, that when there is a law authorising the imposition of tax
and that does not contravene any of the inhibitions in Part XII then the levy
thereunder cannot be attacked as infringing any of the fundamental rights declared in
Part III. In support of this contention, the following observations in Ramjilal's case
((1951) S.C.R. 127, 136, 137.) were relied on :

"Reference has next to be made to article 265 which is in Part XII,

Chapter I, dealing with "Finance". That article provides that tax shall be
levied or collected except by authority of law. There was no similar
provision in the corresponding chapter of the Government of India Act,
1935. If collections of taxes amounts to deprivation of property within
the meaning of Article 31(1), then there was no point in making a
separate provision again as has been made in article 265. It, therefore,
follows that clause (1) of Article 31 must be regarded as concerned with
deprivation of property otherwise than by the imposition or collection of
tax, for otherwise article 265 becomes wholly redundant. In the United
States of America the power of taxation is regarded as distinct from the
exercise

"of police power or eminent domain. Our Constitution evidently has also
treated taxation as distinct from compulsory acquisition of property and
has made independent provision giving protection against taxation save
by authority of law...... In our opinion, the protection against imposition
and collection of taxes save by authority of law directly comes from
article 265, and is not secured by clause (1) of Article 31.
Article 265 not being in Chapter III of the Constitution, its protection is
not a fundamental right which can be enforced by an application to this
court under article 32. It is not our purpose to say that the right
secured by article 265 may not be enforced. It may certainly be
enforced by adopting proper proceedings. All that we wish to state is
that this application in so far as it purports to be founded on
article 32 read with article 31(1) to this court is misconceived and must
fail."

9. A similar decision was given in Laxmanappa Hanumantappa v. Union of

India MANU/SC/0033/1954 : [1954]26ITR754(SC) . Where an order of assessment
made in November, 1953, was attacked in a petition under Article 32 on the ground
that the Act under which it was made, viz., the Taxation on Income (Investigation
Commission) Act (30 of 1947) was void under Article 14 of the Constitution. Rejecting
this contention, Mahajan, C.J., delivering the Judgment of the Court, observed :

"The assessment orders under the Income-tax Act itself were made against the
petitioner in November, 1953. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that
he is entitled to no relief under the provisions of article 32 of the Constitution. It
was held by this Court in Ramjilal v. Income-tax Officer,
Mohindergarh MANU/SC/0057/1951 : [1951]19ITR174(SC) that as there is a
special provision in article 265 of the Constitution that no tax shall be levied or
collected accept by authority of law, clause (1) of article 31 must therefore be
regarded as concerned with deprivation of property otherwise than by the
imposition or collection of tax, and inasmuch as the right conferred by
article 265 is not a right conferred by Part III of the Constitution, it could not be
enforced under article 32. "
10. The argument of the respondents based on the above decisions is that a law
imposing a tax enacted by a competent legislature is not open to attack under the
provisions of Part III.

11. The contention of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that a law of taxation is also
subject to the limitations prescribed in Part III of the Constitution, and that recent
decision of this Court in K. T. Moopil Nair v. The State of Kerala MANU/SC/0042/1960
: [1961]3SCR77 is relied on in support of it. There, the question was whether the
provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Land Tax Act 15 of 1955, as amended by the
Travancore-Cochin Land Tax (Amendment) Act 10 of 1957, contravened Article 14 of
the Constitution. The Court was of the opinion that they did. Then the contention was
raised that in view of Article 265 the legislation was not open to attack under the
provisions of Part III. In repelling this contention, the Court observed :

"Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the States in so far as it
provides that the State shall not levy or collect a tax, except by authority of law,
that is to say, a tax cannot be levied or collected by a mere executive fiat. It has
to be done by authority of law, which must mean valid law. In order that the law
may be valid, the tax proposed to be levied must be within the legislative
competence of the Legislature imposing a tax and authorising the collection
thereof and, secondly, the tax must be subject to the conditions laid down in
Article 13 of the Constitution. One of such conditions envisaged by
Article 13(2) is that the Legislature shall not make any law which takes away or
abridges the equality clause in Article 14, which enjoins the State not to deny to
any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws of the
country. It cannot be disputed that if the Act infringes the provisions of
Article 14 of the Constitution, it must be struck down as unconstitutional."
12. In the result, the impugned legislation was struck down as unconstitutional.

13. It might appear at first sight that this decision is in conflict with the decision in
Ramjilal's case ((1951) S.C.R. 127, 136, 137.) and Laxmanappa's
case MANU/SC/0033/1954 : [1954]26ITR754(SC) . But when the matter is closely
examined, it will be seen that it is not so. In Ramjilal's case ((1951) S.C.R. 127, 136,
137.) and in Laxmnappa's case MANU/SC/0033/1954 : [1954]26ITR754(SC) , the
contention urged was that the tax which is duly authorised by valid legislation as
required by Article 265 will still be bad under Article 31(1) as amounting to
deprivation of property. This was negatived, and it was held that Article 31(1) had no
application to a law, which was within the protection afforded by Article 265. There
are observations in the above decisions which might be read as meaning that taxation
laws are altogether outside the operation of Part III. But, in the context, they have
reference to the application of Article 31(1). In Moopil Nair's
case MANU/SC/0042/1960 : [1961]3SCR77 , the contention urged was that even
though a taxing law might be discriminatory, it was not open to attach under
Article 14 by reason of Article 265. In negativing this contention, this Court held that a
law which authorised the imposition of a tax under Article 265 was also a law within
Article 13, and that, therefore, if it contravened Article 14 it was liable to be struck
down. This decision is clearly an authority for the position that laws of taxation must
also pass the test of the limitations prescribed in Part III of the Constitution. But it is
not an authority for the position that all the provisions contained in Part III are
necessarily applicable to those laws. It did not decide contrary to Ramjilal's
case ((1951) S.C.R. 127, 136, 137.) and Laxmanappa's case MANU/SC/0033/1954 :
[1954]26ITR754(SC) , that Article 31(1) would apply to a taxation law, which is
otherwise valid. In our judgment, the correct position in law is that a taxation law
infringes a fundamental right cannot be shut out on the ground that Article 265 grants
immunity to it from attack under the provisions of Part III, but that whether there has
been infringement must be decided on a consideration of the terms of the particular
Article, which is alleged to have been infringed. It is on this reasoning that taxation
laws were held in Ramjilal's case ((1951) S.C.R. 127, 136, 137.) and in Laxmanappa's
case MANU/SC/0033/1954 : [1954]26ITR754(SC) to be unaffected by
Article 31(1), whereas in Moopil Nair's case MANU/SC/0042/1960 : [1961]3SCR77
they were held to be within the purview of Article 14.

14. In this view the question that arises for decision is whether Article 19(1)(g), which
is alleged to have been infringed, is applicable to a sales tax law which has been
enacted by a competent legislature and which is not otherwise ultra vires. Article
19(1)(g) enacts that all citizens have the rights to practise any profession or to carry
on any occupation, trade or business. Is a law imposing a tax on sale by a dealer an
infringement of his right to carry on trade ? We must assume for the purpose the
present discussion that the sales tax statute in question is within the competence of
the legislature and is not ultra vires. Where a law is passed by a legislature which has
no competence to enact it as when a States Legislature imposes what is in substance,
a tax on income, a subject which is within the exclusive competence of the center
under Entry 82, that legislation has no existence in the eye of law and any levy of tax
under the provisions of that law will not be within the protection afforded by
Article 265, and will, in consequence, be hit by Article 19(1)(g). The same result
would follow when a law though disguised as a taxation law, is, in substance a law
which is intended to destroy or even burden trade and not to raise revenue. That is
colourable legislation which cannot claim the benefit of Article 265, and it must be
held to contravene Article 19(1)(g) unless saved by Article 19(6). But where the law in
within the competence of the legislature and is otherwise valid and is not colourable
can it be said that it is liable to be attacked as infringing Article 19(1)(g) ? The Object
of the legislation is not to prevent the dealer from carrying on his business. Far from it
is envisages that the trader will carry on his business and carry it on a large scale so
that the State might earn the tax. It is, therefore, difficult to conceive how a sales tax
law can fall within the vision of Article 19(1)(g). Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) are in
the same position as Article 31(1). They all of them enact that the citizen shall have
the right to hold property or to carry on business without interference by the State. If
Article 31(1) is as held in Ramjilal's case ((1951) S.C.R. 127, 136, 137.) and
Laxamanappa's case MANU/SC/0033/1954 : [1954]26ITR754(SC) inapplicable to
taxation laws, Articles 19(1)(f) must on the same reasoning also be held to be
inapplicable to such laws.

15. The question can also be considered from another standpoint. Article 19(1)(g) and
Article 19(6) from parts of one law which has for its object the definition of the
fundamental right of a citizen to carry on business. Article 19(1)(g) declares that right
and Article 19(6) prescribes its limits. The two provisions together make-up the whole
of the fundamental right to carry on business. If a taxation law is within Article
19(1)(g) it must also be capable of being upheld as a reasonable restriction under
Article 19(6). But can imposition of a tax be properly said to be a restriction on the
carrying on of trade within Article 19(6) ? It is only if that is so that the question of
reasonableness can arise. If the imposition of sales tax is a restriction on the carrying
on of business then the imposition of income tax must be that even to a greater
degree. Likewise land tax must be held to be a restriction on the right of a citizen to
hold property guaranteed by Article 18(1)(g). Indeed it will be impossible to conceive
of any taxation law which will not be a restriction under Article 19(1)(g) or Article
19(1)(f). It is difficult to imagine that that is the meaning which the word "restriction"
was intended to bear in Articles 19(5) and (6). That this is not the correct
interpretation to be put on the word "restriction" will be clear when Article 19(6) is
further examined. Under that provision the question whether a restriction is
reasonable or not is one for the determination of the Court and that determination has
to be made on an appreciation of the facts established. If it is to be held that taxation
laws are within Article 19(1)(g) then the question whether they are reasonable or not
becomes justiciable and how is the Court to judge whether they are so or not ? Can
the Court say that that the taxation is excessive and is unreasonable ? What are the
material on which the matter could be decided, and what are the criteria on which the
decision thereon could be reached ? It would, therefore, seem that the reasonableness
of taxation laws is not a matter which is justiciable and therefore they could not fall
within the purview of Articles 19(5) and (6). If it is to be held that taxation laws are
within the inhibition enacted in Article 19(2)(g), then all those laws must be struck
down as unconstitutional, because they could never be saved under Article 19(5) and
Article 12(6). It should be noted that Article 19(1)(g) and Article 19(6) form parts of
one scheme and for a proper understanding of the one, regard must be had to the
other, Article 19(1)(g) cannot operate where Article 19(6) cannot step in and the
considerations arising under Article 19(6) being foreign to taxation laws Article
19(1)(g) can have no application to them.

16. We may now refer to the decision of this Court where the question of applicability
of Article 19(1)(g) to taxation laws has been considered. Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0021/1954 : [1954]1SCR1122 the question
arose with reference to a sales tax which was sought to be imposed under explanation
II to section 2(g) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act 21 of 1947, under
which a sale was defined as a transaction by which property in goods which were
actually within the State was transferred wherever the sale might have been made.
That provision was held to be ultra vires the State Legislature. A dealer then filed an
application under Article 226 in the High Court of Nagpur questioning the vires of that
provision and asking for appropriate writ. The State resisted the application on the
ground that as there was a special machinery provided in the Act for questioning the
assessment a petition under Article 226 was not maintainable. In rejecting this
contention this Court held that,

"Explanation II to section 2(g) of the Act having been declared ultra vires, any
imposition of sales tax on the appellant in Madhya Pradesh is without the
authority of law, and that being so a threat by the State by using the coercive
machinery of the impugned Act to realise it from the appellant is sufficient
infringement of his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) and it was clearly
entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution".
17. This decision is a direct authority for the proposition that when a provision in a
taxing statute is ultra vires and void any action taken thereunder is without the
authority of law, as required under Article 265 and that in that situation Article
19(1)(g) would be attracted.

18. This decision was approved in The Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The
State of Bihar MANU/SC/0083/1955 : [1955]2SCR603 . The facts of that case are
that the appellant-Company filed a petition under Article 226 in the High Court of
Patna for a writ of prohibition restraining the Sales Tax Officer from making an
assessment of sales tax pursuant to a notice issued by him. The appellant claimed
that the sales sought to be assessed were made in the course of inter-State Trade
that the provisions of the Bihar sales Act 19 of 1947 which authorised the imposition
of tax on such sales were repugnant to Article 286(2) and void and that, therefore,
the proceedings taken by the Sales Tax Officer should be quashed. That application
was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that if the Sales Tax Officer made an
assessment which was erroneous the assessee could challenge it by way of appeal or
revision under sections 24 & 25 of the Act and that as the matter was within the
jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, no writ of prohibition or certiorari could be issued.
There was an appeal against this order to this Court and therein a preliminary
objection was taken that a writ under Article 226 was not the appropriate remedy
open to an assessee for challenging the legality of the proceedings before a Sales Tax
Officer. In rejecting this contention this Court observed :

"It is however clear from article 265 that no tax can be levied or collected except
by authority of law which must mean a good & valid law. The contention of the
appellant company is that the Act which authorises the assessment, levying and
collection of Sales Tax on inter state trade contravenes & constitutes an
infringement of Article 286 and is therefore ultra vires, void and unenforceable.
If however this contention be well founded the remedy by way of a writ must on
principle and authority be available to the party aggrieved".
19. And dealing with the contention that the petitioner should proceed by way of
appeal or revision under the Act, this Court observed :

"The answer to this plea is short and simple. The remedy under the Act cannot
be said to be adequate and is, indeed, nugatory or useless if the Act which
provides for such remedy is itself ultra vires, and void and the principle relied
upon can, therefore, have no application where a party comes to Court with an
allegation that his right has been or is being threatened to be infringed by a law
which is ultra vires the powers of the legislature which enacted it and as such
void and prays for appropriate relief under article 226".
20. It will be seen that in this case the question arose with reference to a provision in
the taxing statute, which was ultra vires, and the decision was only that any action
taken under such a provision was without authority of law and was, therefore, an
unconstitutional interference with the right to carry on business under Article
19(1)(g). There is nothing in these two decisions which lends any support to the
contention that, where the provision of law under which assessment is made is intra
vires, the order is liable to be impugned as contravening Article 19(1)(g), if the order
is, on the merits, erroneous. That however, was held in the decision in Kailas Nath v.
State of U. P. MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 .

21. In that case, a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed in this Court
challenging an order of assessment on the ground that the Sales Tax Officer had
disallowed an exemption on a misconstruction of a notification issued under
section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, and that thereby the right of the petitioner to
carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) had been infringed. An objection was taken
that, even if the Sales Tax Officer had misconstrued the notification, no fundamental
right of the petitioner had been infringed, and that the petition was not maintainable
Overruling this contention, Govinda Menon, J., observed :

"If a tax is levied without due legal authority on any trade or business, then it is
open to the citizen aggrieved to approach this Court for a writ under
Article 32, "since his right to carry on a trade is violated, or infringed by the
imposition and such being the case, Article 19(1)(g) comes into play".
22. In support of this view, the observations in The Bengal Immunity Company's
case MANU/SC/0083/1955 : [1955]2SCR603 were relied on. The Petitioner contends
that, on this reasoning, Article 19(1)(g) must be held to be violated not merely when
an assessment is made under a statute which is ultra vires, but also when it is made
on a misconstruction of a statute, which is intra vires. It is incontrovertible that is the
effect of the decision in Kailash Nath's case MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 .
But it is equally incontrovertible that the decision in The Bengal Immunity Company's
case MANU/SC/0083/1955 : [1955]2SCR603 , which it purports to follow, does not
support it. There is a fundamental distinction between as order of assessment made
on a provision, which is ultra vires, and one made on a valid provision, which is
misconstrued. Where the provision is void, the protection under Article 265 fails, and
what remains is only unauthorised inference with property or trade by a State Officer,
and Articles 19(1)(f) and (g) are attracted. But where the provision itself is valid,
Article 265 operates, and any action taken thereunder is protected by it. An authority
having jurisdiction to decide a matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right,
& the protection afforded by Article 265 is not destroyed, if its decision turns out to be
erroneous. To such cases, Article 19(1)(g) has no application. Both in Himmatlal's
case ((1954) S.C.R. 1122, 1127.) and in Bengal Immunity Company's
case MANU/SC/0083/1955 : [1955]2SCR603 the decision of the Court that the
proceedings constituted an infringement of the right of the citizen under Article
19(1)(g) was based expressly on the ground that Article 265 did not apply to those
proceedings. But this ground did not exist in Kailash Nath's case (6), and that makes
all the difference in the legal position. The decision in Kailash Nath's (6) which merely
purposed to follow The Bengal Immunity Company's case MANU/SC/0083/1955 :
[1955]2SCR603 , is open to the criticism that it has overlooked this distinction.

23. We may now refer to two decision subsequent to the one in Kailash Nath's
case MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 , which have been relied on by the
petitioner. In That Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. S. R. Sarkar MANU/SC/0270/1960 :
[1961]1SCR379 , the question arose under the Central Sales Tax Act. Under that Act,
sales in the course of State trade are liable to the taxed at a single point. The
petitioner we assessed to tax on certain sales falling within Act by the Central Sales
Tax Officer, Bihar, and the tax was also duly paid. Thereafter, the Central Sales Tax
Officer in West Bengal made an order assessing to tax the very sales in respect of
which tax had been paid. The petitioner than moved this Court under Article 32 for an
order quashing the order of assessment. A preliminary objection to the maintainability
of the petition was taken on behalf of the respondent State on the ground that under
the Act the petitioner could file an appeal against the order of assessment, and that
proceedings under Article 32 were, therefore, incompetent. In overruling this
contention Shah, J., referred to the decision of this Court in Himmatlal's case ((1954)
S.C.R. 1122, 1127.), Bengal Immunity Company's case MANU/SC/0083/1955 :
[1955]2SCR603 and the State of Bombay v. United Motors (India)
Ltd. MANU/SC/0095/1953 : [1953]4SCR1069 and observed;

"In these cases, in appeals from orders passed by the High Court in petitions under
Article 226, this Court held that an attempt to levy tax under a statute which was ultra
vires, infringed the fundamental right of the citizens, and recourse to the High Court
for protection of the fundamental right was not prohibited because of the provision
contained in Article 265. In the case before us, the vires of the Central Sales Tax Act,
1956, are not challenged; but in Kailash Nath v. State of U.P., a petition challenging
the levy of a tax was entertained by this court even through the Act under the
authority of which the tax was sought to be recovered was not challenged as ultra
vires. It is not necessary for purposes of this case to decide whether the principle of
Kailash Nath's case is inconsistent with the view expressed by this court in Ramjilal's
Case.

24. The learned Judges then proceeded to hold that, as there was under the Act a
single liability and that had been discharged, proceedings for the assessment of the
same sales a second time to tax infringed the fundamental right of the petition to hold
property. Dealing with this point, Sarkar, J., observed in the same case :
"This Court held that an illegal levy of sales tax on a trader under an Act the
legality of which was not challenged violates his fundamental right under Article
19(1)(g) and a petition under Article 32 with respect to such violation lies. The
earlier case of MANU/SC/0057/1951 : [1951]19ITR174(SC) does not appear to
have been considered. It is contended that the decision in Kailash Nath's case,
requires reconsideration. We do not think, however, that the present is a fit case
to go into the question whether the two cases are not reconcilable and to decide
the preliminary question raised. The point was taken at a last stage of the
proceeding after much costs had been incurred".
25. It is clear from the above observation that the learned Judges were of the opinion
that the decision in Kailash Nath's case MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790
required reconsideration. The ratio of the decision in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. S.
R. Sarkar MANU/SC/0270/1960 : [1961]1SCR379 would appear to be that, as the
law did not authorise the imposition of tax a second time on sales, on which tax has
been levied and collected, proceedings for assessment a second time are without
jurisdiction, and, therefore, Article 19(1)(g) is attracted, In the present case, there is
no contention that the proceedings of the Sales Tax officer are without jurisdiction.

26. The petitioner also relied on a recent decision of this Court in Shri Madanlal Arora
v. The Excise and Taxation officer, Amritsar MANU/SC/0307/1961 : [1962]1SCR823
. In that case, a notice for assessment was issued after that expiry of the period
prescribed therefore by the Statute. The assessee thereupon applied to this Court
under Article 32 for quashing the proceedings on the ground that they were without
jurisdiction, and it was held that, as the taxing authority had no power under the
statute it issue the notice in question, the proceedings must be quashed. This again is
a case, in which the authority had no jurisdiction under the Act to take proceedings for
assessment of tax, and it makes no difference that such assumption of jurisdiction
was based on a misconstruction of statutory provision. In the present case. We are
concerned with an alleged misconstruction, which bears on the merits of the
assessment, and does not affect the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer to make the
assessment, and the two are essentially different. And we should add that the present
question was not raised or decided in that case.

27. It remains to refer to the decision in Moopil Nair's case MANU/SC/0042/1960 :

[1961]3SCR77 , which has been already discussed in connection with Article 14. In
that case, the provision of the Travancore-Cochin Land Tax Act 15 of 1955 as
amended by the Travancore-Cochin Land Tax (Amendment) Act 10 of 1957, were held
to be bad as violative also of Article 19(1)(f). As the considerations applicable to
Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) are the same, we should have to examine the ground
on which this decision rests. They were thus stated :

"Ordinarily, a taxing statute lays down a regular machinery for making

assessment of the tax proposed to be imposed by the statute. It lays down
detailed procedure as to notice to the proposed assessee to make a return in
respect of property proposed to be taxed, prescribes the authority and the
procedure for hearing any objections to the liability for taxation or as to the
extent of the tax proposed to be levied, and finally, as to the right to challenge
the regularity of assessment made, by recourse to proceeding in a higher civil
Court..... The Act being silent as to the machinery and procedure to be followed
in making the assessment leaves it to the Executive to evolve the requisite
machinery and procedure. The whole thing from beginning to end, is treated as
of a purely administrative character, completely ignoring the legal position that
the assessment of a tax on person or property is at least of a quasi-judicial
character...... It is clear, therefore, that apart from being discriminatory and
imposing unreasonable restrictions on holding property, the Act clearly
confiscatory in character and effect..... For these reasons, as also for the
reasons for which the provisions of sections 4 and 7 have been declared to be
unconstitutional in view of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, all
these operative sections of the Act, namely, 4, 5A and 7, must be held to offend
Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution also."
28. From the above observations, it will be seen that the ground on which the law was
held to be in contravention of Article 19(1)(f) was not one which had any reference to
the merits of the assessment but to the procedure laid down for imposing tax. This
decision is an authority only for the position that, where the procedure laid down in a
taxing statute is opposed to rules of natural justice, then any imposition of tax under
such a procedure must be held to violate Article 19(1)(f).

29. Reference may be, made to the following passage in Willoughby's Constitution of
the United States, Second Edn, Vol. 3, p. 1718 relied on for the respondents :

"It is established that the guaranty to suitors of due process of law does not
furnish to them a right to have decision of courts reviewed upon the mere
ground that such decisions have been based upon erroneous findings of fact or
upon erroneous determinations of law. Such errors, if committed by trial courts,
can be corrected only by ordinary appellate proceedings as provided for by law.
Especially has this doctrine been declared in cases in which the Federal Court
have been asked to review the decisions of State court".
30. Our attention was also invited to the decisions in Mc Govern v. New York [1913]
229 U.S. 363, L.ed. 1228.) and American Railway Express Co. v. Kentucky [1927] 273
U.S. 269 71 L.ed. 639. It was observed in the latter case :

"It is firmly established that a merely erroneous decision given by a State court
in the regular course of judicial proceedings does not deprive the unsuccessful
party of property without due process of law."
31. The above remarks support the contention of the respondent that an order of a
Court or tribunal is not hit by Article 19(1)(g).

32. The result of the authorities may thus be summed up :

(1) A tax will be valid only if it is authorised by a law enacted by a

competent legislature. That is Article 265.

(2) A law which is authorised as aforesaid must future be not repugnant

to any of the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, a law which
contravenes Article 14 will be bad, Moopil Nair's
case MANU/SC/0042/1960 : [1961]3SCR77 .

(3) A law which is made by a competent legislature and which is not

otherwise invalid, is not open to attack under Article 31(1). Ramjilal's
case ((1951) S.C.R. 127, 136, 137.) and Laxmanappa's case ((1951)
S.C.R. 127, 136, 137.).

(4) A law which is ultra vires either because the legislature has no
competence over it or it contravenes, some constitutional inhibition,
has no legal existence, and any action taken thereunder will be an
infringement of Article 19(1)(g) Himmatlal's case ((1954) S.C.R. 1122,
1127.) and Laxmanappa's case MANU/SC/0033/1954 :
[1954]26ITR754(SC) . The result will be same when the law is a
colourable piece of legislation.

(5) Where assessment proceedings are taken without the authority of

law, or where the proceedings are repugnant to natural justice, there is
an infringement of the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) and
Article 19(1)(g) : Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. MANU/SC/0270/1960 :
[1961]1SCR379 ; Moopil Nair's case MANU/SC/0042/1960 :
[1961]3SCR77 and Shri Madan Lal Arora's case ((1962) 1 S.C.R. 1122,
1127.).

33. Now, the question is, when a law is enacted by a competent legislature and it is
not unconstitutional as contravening any probation in the Constitution such as
Article 14, and when proceedings for assessment of tax are taken thereunder in the
manner provided therein, and there is no violation of rules of natural justice, does
Article 19(1)(g) apply, even through the taxing authority might have, in the exercise
of its jurisdiction, misconstrued the legal provisions ? The decision in Kailash Nath's
case MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 would appear to support the contention
that it does; but for the seasons already given, we think that its correctness is open to
question and the point needs reconsideration.

34. There is another objection taken to the maintainability of this petition.

Article 32, under which it is presented, confers on a person, whose fundamental right
guaranteed in Part III is infringed, a right to move this Court for appropriate writs for
obtaining redress. The contention of the petitioner is that the order of assessment
dated December 20, 1958, amounts to interference with the right of the firm to carry
on business and is, therefore, in contravention of Article 19(1)(g), and that relief
should be granted under Article 32. Now the objection that is taken on behalf of the
respondents is that the guarantee given under Article 19(1)(g) is against an action of
the executive or legislature of the State, that the order of assessment now in question
is one passed in judicial proceedings and is, therefore, outside the purview of Article
19(1)(g). If this contention is well-funded, then Article 32 will have no application and
the present petition must fail on this ground.

35. The constitutional provisions bearing on this question are Articles 12, 13, 19 and
32. Article 12 enacts that :

"In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, 'the State' includes the
Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of
each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India
or under the control of the Government of India".
36. Article, 13(3)(a) defines 'law' as follows :

"'law includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification,

custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;"
37. Article 19(1) enacts that the citizen shall have the seven right mentioned therein,
and Articles 19(2) to 19(6) save laws, whether existing or to be made, which imposed
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of those rights, subject to the conditions laid
down therein. Article 32(1) guarantees "the right to move the Supreme Court by
appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the right conferred by this Part". Than
we have Article 32(2), which is as follows :

"The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari, which ever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of
any of the right conferred by this Part".
38. It will be convenient now to set out the contentions of the parties urged in support
of their respective positions. The contention of the respondents based upon
Article 12 is that the word "State" in Part III means only the Executive and the
Legislature, that the Judiciary is excluded therefrom, and that, therefore, on question
of a fundamental right can arise with reference to an order passed by an authority
discharging judicial functions. The answer of the petitioner to this is that the word
"State" comprehends all the three organs, the Executive, the Legislature and the
Judiciary, that the express mention of the Government and the Legislature in
Article 12 cannot be construed as excluding the Judiciary, that the use of the word
"includes" shows that the enumeration which follows is not exhaustive, and that,
therefore, the ordinary and the wider connotation of the word "State" is not cut down
by Article 12.

39. It is true that the word "includes" normally signifies that what is enumerated as
included is not exhaustive. But the question ultimately is, what is the intention of the
Legislature, and that has to be gathered on a reading of the enactment as a whole. It
is possible that in some context the word "includes" might import that the
enumeration is exhaustive. The following observation of Lord Watson in Dilworth v.
Commissioner of Stamps [1899] A.C. 99 were relied upon :

"The word 'include' is very generally used in interpretation clauses in order to

enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute;
and when it is so used these words or phrases must be construed as
comprehending, not only such things as they signify according to their natural
import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they
shall include. But the word 'include' is susceptible of another construction, which
may become imperative, if the context of the Act is sufficient to show that it was
not merely employed for the purpose of adding to the natural significance of the
words or expressions defined. It may be equivalent to 'mean and include,' and in
that case it may afford an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the
purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expressions."
40. Now, when the Legislature wants to enlarge the sense in which an expression is
generally, used so as to take in certain other things, it does so by using the word
"includes". therefore, it may be argued that the word "includes" would be appropriate
only when the expression, the connotation of which is sought to be extended by the
word "includes", does not, in its ordinary sense, include what is sought to be
"included", and that as the Executive and the Legislature of a State are, according to
all accepted notions, understood as included in the word "State", the use of the word
"includes" with reference to them would make no sense. The Article also provides that
the word "State" is to include "all local or other authorities". With reference to them,
the use of the word "includes" will be quite appropriate, because they would not in the
ordinary sense of the words "the State", be understood as included therein. A reading
of the Article, as a whole, would seem to show that the intention of the Legislature
was, on the one hand, to restrict the accepted connotation of the word "State", and,
on the other hand, to extend it by including "local or other authorities". There is much
to be said in favour of the contention of the respondents that in the context the word
"includes" must to be read as "means and includes".

41. In further support of the contention that orders of Courts and Tribunals are not, in
general within the purview of Part III, the respondents rely on the definition of 'law' in
Article 13(3). Judgments and orders made in the course of judicial proceedings do not
fall within that definition. It is con tended that the scheme of the Constitution is that,
whenever there is an infringement of a fundamental right by the Executive or the
Legislature, the person aggrieved has a right of resort to this Court under
Article 32, that being the consequence of this definition of 'State' under Article 12 and
of law under Article 13(3); that Court and Tribunals are not law-making bodies in the
sense in which law is defined in Article 13(3), their function being to interprets law;
and that it will, therefore, be inappropriate to bring them within Part III, which enacts
limitations on power to makes laws.

42. It is urged that the scheme of the Constitution does no contemplated judicial
orders being brought up before this Court in a petition under Article 32. Wherever a
fundamental right is infringed, it is said, the party aggrieved has a right to resort to
the civil Court either in their ordinary jurisdiction or under Article 226, and the
decisions of the Courts will ultimately come up it this Court on appeal under
Articles 132 to 136. Thus, when executive and legislative action infringes fundamental
right, the Supreme Court can deal with it under Article 32, whereas orders of Courts
and Tribunals, in which questions of infringement of fundamental rights are decided,
will come up for review before the Supreme Court under Articles 132 to 136.

43. We may now refer to the decisions where this question has been considered by
this Court. In Bashesher Nath v. The Commissioner of Income-
tax MANU/SC/0064/1958 : [1959] Supp. (1) S.C.R. 528 occur the following
observations, relied on for the respondents :

"In the third place it is to be observed that, by virtue of Article 12, 'the State'
which is, by Article 14, forbidden to discriminate between persons includes the
Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of
each of the State and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or
under the control of the Government of India. Article 14, therefore, is an
injunction to both the legislative as well as the executive organs of the State and
the other subordinate authorities. As regards the legislative organ of the State,
the fundamental right is further consolidated and protected by the provisions of
Article 13. .. That apart, the very language of Article 14 of the Constitution
expressly directs that 'the state', by which Article 12 includes the executive
organ, shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the law. Thus Article 14 protects us from both legislation, and
executive tyranny by way of discrimination."
44. The above remarks are based on the view that the words "the State" in
Article 12 comprehend only the Executive and the Legislature.

45. A more direct decision on this point is the one in S. S. Md. Amirabbas Abbasi v.
State of Madhya Bharat MANU/SC/0048/1960 : [1960]3SCR138 . There, the facts
were that one Amirabbas Abbasi applied to the Court of the District Judge at Ratlam
for an order that he should be appointed guardian of the person and properties of his
two children. The application was rejected by the District Judge, who appointed
another person, Sultan Hamid Khan, as the guardian. An appeal against this order to
the High Court was also dismissed. Amirabbas Abbasi then filed a petition in this Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the order of the District
Court on the ground that it was discriminative and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. In dismissing this petition, this Court observed :

"The second respondent was appointed guardian of the minors by order of a

competent court, and denial of equality before the law or the equal protection of
the laws can be claimed against executive action or legislative process but
against the decision of a competent tribunal. The remedy of a person aggrieved
by the decision of a competent judicial tribunal is to approach for redress a
superior tribunal, if there be one."
46. The following observations in Ratilal v. State of Bombay A.I.R. [1959] Bom.
242 are also relied on for the respondents :

"The second observation which must be made is that the protection afforded by
the Constitution to fundamental right is against executive, or legislative
interference. A decision of a regularly constituted Court cannot however be
challenged as an in reference with fundamental right in the abstract. The Court
in the very nature of things adjudicates upon conflicting claims and declares
rights and does not by the operation of its own order seek to infringe any
Fundamental rights."
47. These observation would appear to apply with equal force to judicial proceedings
before tribunals, as they cannot be regarded as representing the executive to the
legislative function of the State.

48. It is next contended for the petitioner that the Sales Tax Officer will at least fall
within the category of "other authority" in Article 12. The meaning of the expression
"other authorities" was considered in The University of Madras v. Shantha Bai I.A.R.
1954 Mad. 67. There, the question was as to whether the University of Madras was
"other authority" within that Article. In deciding that it was not, it observed that the
words "other authorities" must be construed ejusdem generis with what had been
enumerated in the Article, namely, the Government or the Legislature. This clearly
supports the respondents.

49. It is contended for the petitioner that even if Courts could not be held to be "other
authorities", quasi judicial tribunals must be regarded as falling within that expression,
and that Sales Tax Officers are at best only quasi judicial officers, and they cannot be
put on the same footing as regular Courts. It is argued that sales tax authorities are
Officers of Government to whom is entrusted the work of levy and collection of taxes,
that that is primarily an executive function, that the officers have, no doubt, to act
judicially in determining that tax payable but that that is only incidental to the
discharge of what is essentially an administrative act, that, at best the assessment
proceedings are quasi-judicial character, and that accordingly an Officer imposing a
tax must be held to be "other authority" within Article 12. In this view, it is urged, the
assessment order dated December 20, 1958, falls within the purview of Part III.

50. The respondents dispute the correctness of this contention. They concede that a
Sales Tax Officer has certain function of an administrative character but urge that the
proceedings with which we are concerned, are entirely judicial. In this connection, it
will have to be borne in mind that it is a feature well-known in the Government of this
country that both executive and judicial functions are vested in the same Officer, and
because of the undesirable results which followed from this combination, Article 50 of
the Constitution has enacted as one of the Directive Principles that,

"The State shall take step to separate the judiciary from the executive in the
public services of the State".
51. When an authority is clothed with two functions, one administrative and the other
judicial, proceedings before it which fall under the latter category do not cease to be
judicial by reason of the fact that it has got other non-judicial functions. What has to
be seen is the capacity in which authority acts with reference to the impugned matter.
It will, therefore, be necessary to examine the character in which the Sales Tax Officer
function when he takes proceeding for assessment of tax. Under the provisions of the
Act, the Sales Tax Officer has to issue notice to the assessee, take evidence in the
matter, hear him and than decide, in accordance with the provisions of the statute,
whether tax is payable, and if so, how much. Against his order, there is an appeal in
which against the parties have to be heard and a decision given in accordance with
law. The legality or propriety of an order passed in an appeal is again open to
consideration on revision by a Revising Authority who must be "a person qualified
under clause (2) of Article 217 of the Constitution for appointment as Judge of a High
Court". Section II, which is on the same lines as section 66 of the Indian Income-Tax
Act, provides that the Revising Authority might refer for the opinion of the High Court
any question of law arising out of its order, and under section 11(4), the assessee has
a right to move the High Court for an order that the Revising Authority do refer the
question of law arising out of the order, if there has been an erroneous refusal to
refer. Now the respondents contend that the proceedings commencing with a notice
issued by the Sales Tax Officer and ending with a reference to the High Court are
entirely judicial, that it is in that view that petitions for certiorari and prohibition are
entertained against orders of assessment under Article 226 of the Constitution, and
appeals against such order are entertained by this Court under Article 136. It will be
inconsistent it is urged, to hold, on the one hand, that the orders passed in these
assessment proceedings are open to appeal under Article 136 on the footing that they
are made by Tribunals, and, on the other, that they are open to attack under
Article 32 of the footing that they are made by executive authorities.

52. It is also contended for the petitioner that the definition of "State" in Article 12 is
to govern Part III "unless the context otherwise required", and that in the context of
Article 32; "The State" would include Courts and Tribunals exercising judicial
functions. Article 32, it will be noticed; confers on the Court jurisdiction to issues
among others, write of Certiorari and prohibition. The argument is that as these write
are issued only with reference to judicial proceedings, the restricted definition of "the
State" in Article 12 as excluding them must give way to the express language of
Article 32. It is accordingly contended that even on the footing that the order of
assessment is judicial in character, the present petition for issue of certiorari is within
Article 32. It is true argue the respondents, that certiorari and prohibition lie only in
respect of judicial and not administrative acts, and it must, therefore, be taken that
Article 32 does envisage that there could be a petition under that Article with respect
to judicial proceedings. It is also true, as held by this Court that the right of an
aggrieved party to resort to this court under that Article is itself a fundamental right
under Article 32. But the right of resort to this Court under Article 32(1) is only when
there is an infringement of a fundamental right which had been guaranteed in Part III,
that it is Article 14 to 31 that declare what those, fundamentals right are, for the
breach of which remedy can be had under Article 32(2), and that what has to be seen,
therefore, is whether there is anything in the Article which is said to have been
infringed, which is repugnant to the definition of "the State" in Article 12. Examining,
it is said, Article 19(1)(g) which is alleged to have been violated, there is nothing in it
which is repugnant to the restricted connotation of the expression "the State" in
Article 12, and judicial proceedings therefore cannot be brought within it. It is further
argued that Article 19(2) to 19(6) clearly show that it is only laws existing and to be
made that are within their purview, an judicial pronouncements not being law cannot
fall within the ambit of those provisions. In the result, it is contended that the
definition of "State" in Article 12 stands and an order made by a Court or tribunal
cannot be held infringe Article 19(1)(g) read along with Article 12.

53. If that is the true position, replies the petitioner, then what purpose is served by
the provision in Article 32 that this Court might issue writs of certiorari or prohibition ?
The answer of the respondents is that among the substantive enactments forming
Articles 14 to 31, there are some which are specially, directed against judicial
proceedings, and the writ of certiorari or prohibition will lie in respect of them. On
such, for example, is Article 20, which is as follows :

"20. (1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation
of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an
offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might
have been inflicted under the law in forces at the time of the
commission of the offence.

(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence
more than once.

(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a

witness against himself."

54. This Article clearly applies to prosecutions and convictions for offences. It has
reference, therefore, the judicial proceedings, and the restricted definition of "State"
in Article 12 is, in the context, excluded. And proceedings contemplated by
Article 20 being judicial, writs of certiorari and prohibition can issue. In this
connection, the respondents rely upon the expression "whichever may be appropriate"
occurring in Article 32(2). It means, it is said, that when once an infringement of a
fundamental right is established, the writ which the Court can issue must depend upon
the nature of the right involved. It is accordingly contended that Article 19(1)(g) is, on
its terms inapplicable to judicial proceedings, and no writ of certiorari can issue for the
infringement of a right under that Article.

55. It was also argued for the petitioner that under the American law certiorari lies
against decisions of the State Court when they are repugnant to the provision of the
Constitution, and the decision in National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People v. State of Alabama (1958) 2 L.ed. 2d. 1488 was relied support of this
position. There the question related to the validity of a provision in a statute of
Alabama requiring foreign corporations to disclose, among other things, the names
and addresses of their local members and agents. The appellant-Corporation having
made default in complying with this provision, the State instituted as action for
appropriate relief, and the Court granted the same. Than the Corporation moved that
Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the provision in the statute
was an invasion of the right to freely assemble, guaranteed by the Constitution. One
of the grounds on which the State resisted the application was that no certiorari will
lie for quashing an order of Court. In rejecting this contention, the Court observed :

"It is not of moment that the State has there acted solely through its judicial
branch for whether legislative or judicial, it is still the application of state power
which we are asked to scrutinize."
56. It is unnecessary to refer to other decisions in which similar views have been
taken. The principle on which all these decisions are based was thus stated in Virginia
v. Rives (1880) 100 U.S. 313 : 25 Sl. ed. 667 :

"It is doubtless true that a State may act through different agencies, - either by
its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities; and the prohibitions of the
amendment extend to all action of the State denying equal protection of the
laws, whether it be action by one of these agencies or by another."
57. These decisions have no bearing on the point now under consideration, which is
not whether a writ of certiorari will lie under the general law against decisions of
Courts - on that, there could be and has been no controversy - but whether, on the
terms of Article 12, that will lie against an order a of Court or Tribunal.

58. The above is a resume of the arguments addressed by both sides in support of
their respective contentions. The question thus debated is of considerable importance
on which there has been no direct pronouncement by this Court. It seems desirable
that it should be authoritatively settled. We accordingly direct that the papers be
placed before the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for deciding the two
following question :-

1. Is an order of assessment made by an authority under a taxing

statute which is intra vires, open to challenge as repugnant to Article
19(1)(g), on the sole ground that it is based on a misconstruction of a
provision of the Act or of a notification issued thereunder ?

2. Can the validity of such an order be questioned in a petition under

Article 32, of the constitution ?

1962. April 10. The matter was finally heard by a larger Bench consisting of S. K. Das,
J. L. Kapur, A. K. Sarkar, K. Subba Rao, M. Hidayatullah, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and
J. R. Mudholkar, JJ. and

S.K. Das, J.

59. The facts of the case have been stated in the judgment of my learned brother
Kapur J., and it is not necessary for me to restate them. I have reached the same
conclusion as has been reached by my learned brother. But in view of the importance
of the question raised, I would like to state in my own words the reasons for reaching
that conclusion.

60. The two questions which have been referred to this larger Bench are :

1. Is an order of assessment made by an authority under a taxing

statute which is Intra vires, open to challenge as repugnant to Article
19(1)(g), on the sole ground that it is based on a misconstruction of a
provision of the Act or of a notification issued there under ?

2. Can the validity of such an order be questioned in a petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution ?

These two questions are inter-connected and substantially relate to one

matter : is the validity of an order made with jurisdiction under an Act
which in Intra vires and good law in all respects, or of a notification
properly issued thereunder, liable to be questioned in a petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution on the sole ground that the provisions of
the Act, or the terms of the notification issued thereunder, have been
misconstrued ?

It is necessary, perhaps, to start with the very Article, namely,

Article 32, with reference to which the question has to be answered.

"32. (1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate

proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is
guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders,
or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate,
for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by

clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other Court
to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the
powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except
as otherwise provided for by this Constitution."

61. The Article occurs in Part III of the Constitution headed 'Fundamental Rights'. It is
one of a series of articles which fall under the sub-head, "Right to Constitutional
Remedies". There can be no doubt that the right to move the Supreme Court by
appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the right conferred by Part III is itself
a guaranteed fundamental right. Indeed, clause (1) of the Article says so in express
terms. Clause (2) says that this Court shall have power to issue directions or order or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by Part III. Clause (4) makes it clear that the right guaranteed by
the Article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by the
Constitution. Article 359 of the Constitution states that where a Proclamation of
Emergency is in operation the President may by order declare that the right to move
any court for the enforcement of such of the rights conferred by Part III as may be
mentioned in the order and all proceedings pending in any court for the enforcement
of the rights so mentioned shall remain suspended etc. It is clear, therefore, that so
long as no order is made by the President to suspend the enforcement of the rights
conferred by Part III of the Constitution every person in India, citizen or otherwise,
has the guaranteed right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of the rights
conferred on him by Part III of the Constitution and the Supreme Court has the power
to issue necessary directions, orders or writs which may be appropriate for the
enforcement of such rights. Indeed, this Court has held in more than one decision that
under the Constitution it is the privilege and duty of this Court to uphold the
fundamental rights, whenever a person seeks the enforcement of such rights. The
oath of office which a Judge of the Supreme Court takes on assumption of office
contains inter alia a solemn affirmation that he will "uphold the Constitution and the
laws".

62. The controversy before us centers round the expression "enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part" which occurs in clauses (1) and (2) of the Article. It has not
been disputed before us that this Court is not trammelled by technical considerations
relation to the issue of writs habeas corpus mandamus, Prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari. This Court said in T. C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [1955] 1 S.C.R. 230.

"In view of the express provisions in our Constitution we need not now look back to
the early history or the procedural technicalities of these writs in English law, nor feel
oppressed by any difference or change of opinion expressed in particular case by
English Judges. We can make an order or issue a writ in the nature of certiorari in all
appropriate case and in appropriate manner, so long as we keep to the broad and
fundamental principles that regulate the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of
granting such writs in English law."

63. therefore, apart altogether from all technical considerations, the broad question
before us is - in what circumstances does the question of enforcement of the rights
conferred by Part III of the Constitution arise under Article 32 of the Constitution,
remembering all the time that the constitutional remedy under Article 32 is itself a
fundamental right ? On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that whenever it
is prima facie established that there is violation of a fundamental right, the question of
its enforcement arises; for example, (a) it may arise when the statute itself is ultra
vires and some action is taken under such a statute, or (b) it may also arise when
some action is taken under an intra vires statute, but the action taken is without
jurisdiction so that the statute though intra vires does not support it; to (c) it may
again arise on misconstruction of statute which is intra vires, but the misconstruction
is such that the action taken on the misconstrued statute results in the violation of
fundamental right. It has been argued before us that administrative bodies do not
cease to come within the definition of the word "State" in Article 12 of the Constitution
when they perform quasi-judicial functions and in view of the true scope of
Article 32, the action of such bodies whenever such action violates or threatens to
violate a fundamental right gives rise to the question of enforcement of such right and
no distinction can be drawn in respect of three classes of cases referred to above. As
to the case before us the argument is that the taxing authorities misconstrued the
terms of the notification which was issued by the State Government on December 14,
1957 under section 4(1)(b) of the United Provinces Sales Tax Act, U.P. Act No. XV of
1948 and as a result of the misconstruction, they have assessed the petitioner to sales
tax on the sum of Rs. 4,71,541.75 nP. which action, it is submitted, has violated the
fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) and
Article 31 of the Constitution.

64. The misconstruction, it is argued, may lead to a transgression of constitutional

limits in different ways; for example, in a case where an inter-State transaction of sale
is sought to be taxed despite the constitutional prohibition in Article 286 of the
Constitution as it stood previously, by wrongly holding that the transaction in intra-
State, there is a transgression of constitutional limits. Similarly, where a quasi-judicial
authority commits an error as to a fact or issue which the authority has complete
jurisdiction to decide under the statute, but the error is of such a nature that it affects
a fundamental right, there is again a transgression of constitutional limits. The
argument is that there is no distinction in principle between these classes of
misconstruction of a statute, and the real test, it is submitted, should be the
individuality of the error, namely, whether the error impinges on a fundamental right.
If it does, then the person aggrieved has a right to approach this Court by means of a
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

65. On the contrary, the contention of the respondents which is urged as a preliminary
objection to the maintainability of the petition in that on the facts stated in the
present petition no question of the enforcement of any fundamental right arises and
the petition is not maintainable. It is stated that the validity of the Act not being
challenged in any manner, every part of it is good law; therefore, the provision in the
Act authorising the Sales-tax Officer as a quasi-judicial tribunal to assess the tax is a
valid provision and a decision made by the said tribunal strictly acting in exercise of
the quasi-judicial power given to it must necessarily be a fully valid and legal act. It is
pointed out that there is no question here of the misconstruction leading to a
transgression of constitutional limits nor to any error relating to a collateral fact. The
error which is complained of, assuming it to be an error, is in respect of a matter
which the assessing authority has complete jurisdiction to decide; that decision is
legally valid irrespective of whether it is correct or otherwise. It is stated that a legally
valid act cannot offend any fundamental right and the proper remedy for correcting an
error of the nature complained of in the present case is by means of an appeal or if
the error is an error apparent on the face of the record, by means of a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution.

66. Before I proceed to consider these arguments it is necessary to clear the ground
by standing that certain larger questions were also mooted before us, but I consider it
unnecessary to examine or decide them. Such questions were : (1) whether taxation
laws are subject to the limitations imposed by Part III, particularly Article 19 therein,
(2) whether the expression "the State" in Article 12 includes "courts" also, and (3)
whether there can be any question of the enforcement of fundamental rights against
decisions of courts or the action of private persons. These larger questions do not fall
for decision in the present case and I do not consider it proper to examine or decide
them here. I should make it clear that nothing I have stated in the present judgment
should be taken as expressing any opinion on these larger questions. It is perhaps
necessary to add also that this writ petition could have been disposed of on the very
short ground that there was no misconstruction of the notification dated December 14,
1957 and the resultant action of the assessing authority did not affect any
fundamental right of the petitioner. That is the view which we have expressed in the
connected appeal of M/s. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel & Co. v. The Sales Tax Officer,
Agra and another (Civil Appeal No. 99 of 1961) in which Judgment is also being
delivered to-day.

67. The writ petition, however, has been referred to a larger Bench for the decision of
the two important constitutional questions relating to the scope of Article 32, which I
have stated earlier in this judgment. It is, therefore, necessary and proper that I
should decide those two questions which undoubtedly arise as a preliminary objection
to the maintainability of the writ petition.

68. I now proceed to a consideration of the main arguments advanced before us. On
some of the aspects of the problem which has been debated before us there has been
very little disagreement. I may first delimit the filed where there has been agreement
between the parties and then go on to the controversial area of disagreement. It has
not been disputed before us that where the statute or a provision thereof is ultra
vires, any action taken under such ultra vires provision by a quasi-judicial authority
which violates or threatens to violate a fundamental right does give rise to a question
of enforcement of that right and a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution will lie.
There are several decisions of this Court which have laid this down. It is unnecessary
to cite them all and a reference need only be made to one of the earliest decision on
this aspect of the case, namely, Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh MANU/SC/0021/1954 : [1954]1SCR1122 . A similar but not exactly the
same position arose in the Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of
Bihar MANU/SC/0083/1955 : [1955]2SCR603 . The facts of the case were that the
appellant company filed a petition under Article 226 in the High Court of Patna for a
writ of prohibition restraining the Sales Tax Officer from making an assessment of
sales tax pursuant to a notice issued by him. The appellant claimed that the sales
sought to be assessed were made in the course of inter-State trade, that the
provisions of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Bihar Act 19 of 1947) which authorised
the imposition of tax on such sales were repugnant to Article 286(2) and void, and
that, therefore, the proceedings taken by the Sales Tax Officer should be quashed.
The application was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that if the Sales Tax
Officer made an assessment which was erroneous, the assessee could challenge it by
way of appeal or revision under sections 24 and 25 of that Act, and that as the matter
was within the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, no writ of prohibition or certiorari
could be issued. There was an appeal against this order to this Court and therein a
preliminary objection was taken that a writ under Article 226 was not the appropriate
remedy open to an assessee for challenging the legality of the proceedings before a
Sales Tax Officer. In rejecting the contention, this Court observed :

"It is, however, clear from article 265 that no tax can be levied or collected
except by authority of law which must mean a good and valid law. The
contention of the appellant company is that the Act which authorises the
assessment, levying and collection of Sales tax on inter-State trade contravenes
and constitutes an infringement of Article 286 and is, therefore, ultra vires, void
and unenforceable. If, however, this contention by well founded, the remedy by
way of a writ must, on principle and authority, be available to the party
aggrieved."
69. And dealing with the contention that the petitioner should proceed by way of
appeal or revision under the Act, this Court observed :
"The answer to this plea is short and simple. The remedy under the Act cannot
be said to be adequate and is, indeed, nugatory or useless if the Act which
provides for such remedy is itself ultra vires and void and the principle relied
upon can, therefore, have no application where a party comes to Court with an
allegation that his right has been or is being threatened to be infringed by a law
which is ultra vires the powers of the legislature which enacted it and as such
void and prays for appropriate relief under article 226. "
70. It will be seen that the question which arose in that case was with reference to a
provision in the taxing statute which was ultra vires and the decision was that any
action taken under such a provision was without the authority of law and was,
therefore, an unconstitutional interference with the right to carry on business under
Article 19(1)(f). In circumstances somewhat similar in nature there have been other
decision of this Court which the violation of a fundamental right was taken to have
been established when the assessing authority sought to tax a transaction the
taxation of which came within a constitutional prohibition. Such cases were treated as
on a par with those cases where the provision itself was ultra vires.

71. The decision in Bidi Supply Co. v. The Union of India [1956] 2 S.C.R. 67 arose out
of a somewhat different set of facts. There the Central Board of Revenue transferred
by means of a general order certain cases of the petitioner under section 5(7-A) of the
India Income-tax Officer, District III, Calcutta, to the Income-tax Officer, Special
Circle, Ranchi. It was held that an omnibus wholesale order of transfer as was made in
the case was not contemplated by the sub-section and, therefore, the impugned order
of transfer which was expressed in general terms without reference to any particular
case and without any limitation as to time was beyond the competence of the Central
Board of Revenue. It was also held that the impugned order was discriminatory
against the petitioner and violated the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 14 of
the Constitution. This decision really proceeded upon the basis that an executive body
cannot, without authority of law, take action violative of a fundamental right and if it
does, an application under Article 32 will lie. In that case no question arose of the
exercise of a quasi-judicial function in the discharge of undoubted jurisdiction; on the
contrary, the ratio of the decision was that the order passed by the Central Board of
Revenue was without jurisdiction. The decision was considered again in Pannalal
Binjraj v. Union of India MANU/SC/0020/1956 : [1957]1SCR233 after further
amendments had been made in section 5(7-A) of the India Income-tax Act, 1922 and
it was pointed out that section 5(7-A) as amended was a measure of administrative
convenience and constitutionally valid and an order passed thereunder could not be
challenged as unconstitutional.

72. There are other decisions which proceeded on a similar basis, namely that if a
quasi-judicial authority acts without jurisdiction or wrongly assumes jurisdiction by
committing an error as to a collateral fact and the resultant action threatens or
violates a fundamental right, the question of enforcement of that right arises and a
petition under Article 32 will lie. (See Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. S. R.
Sarkar MANU/SC/0270/1960 : [1961]1SCR379 ; and Madan Lal Arora v. The Excise
and Taxation Officer, Amritsar MANU/SC/0307/1961 : [1962]1SCR823 . In Tata Iron
and Steel Co. Ltd. v. S. R. Sarkar MANU/SC/0270/1960 : [1961]1SCR379 the
question arose under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Under that Act sales in the
course of inter-State trade are liable to be taxed at a single point. The petitioner was
assessed to tax on certain sales falling within the Act by the Central Sales Tax Officer'
Bihar, and the tax was also duly paid. Thereafter the Central Sales Tax Officer in West
Bengal made on order assessing to tax the very sales in respect of which tax had been
paid. The petitioner then moved this Court under Article 32 for an order quashing the
assessment. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition was taken on
behalf of the respondent State on the ground that under the Act the petitioner could
file an appeal against the order of assessment and that proceedings under
Article 32 were, therefore, incompetent. In overruling this contention Shah, J.,
referred to the decisions of this Court in Himmatlal Harilal Mehta's
case MANU/SC/0021/1954 : [1954]1SCR1122 , Bengal Immunity's Company's
case MANU/SC/0083/1955 : [1955]2SCR603 and the State of Bombay v. United
Motor (India) Ltd. [1953] S.C.R. 1969 and observed :

"In these cases, in appeals from orders passed by the High Courts in petitions
under Article 226, this Court held that an attempt to levy tax under a statute
which was ultra vires infringed the fundamental right of the citizens and recourse
to the High Court for protection of the fundamental right was not prohibited
because of the provisions contained in Article 265. In the case before us, the
vires of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, are not challenged; but in Kailash Nath
v. The State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 a petition
challenging the levy of a tax was entertained by this Court even though the Act
under the authority of which the tax was sought to be recovered was not
challenged as ultra vires. It is not necessary for purposes of this case to decide
whether the principle of Kailash Nath's case MANU/SC/0136/1957 :
AIR1957SC790 is inconsistent with the view expressed by this Court in Ramjilal
v. Income-tax Officer, Mohindargarh MANU/SC/0057/1951 :
[1951]19ITR174(SC) ."
73. The learned Judge then proceeded to hold that as there was under the Act a single
liability and that had been discharged, there could be no proceedings for the
assessment of the same sales a second time to tax. The ration of the decision would
appear to be that as the law did not authorise the imposition of tax a second time on
sales on which tax had been levied and collected, proceedings for assessment a
second time were without jurisdiction. In Madan Lal Arora's case MANU/SC/0307/1961
: [1962]1SCR823 a notice for assessment was issued after the expiry of the period
prescribed therefore by the statute. The assessee thereupon applied to this Court
under Article 32 for quashing the proceedings for assessment on the ground that they
were without jurisdiction and it was held that as the taxing authority had not power
under the statute to issue the notice in question the proceedings were without
jurisdiction and must be quashed. This again was a case in which the authority had no
jurisdiction under the Act to take proceedings for assessment of tax and it made no
difference that such assumption for jurisdiction was based on a misconstruction of
statutory provision.

74. It is necessary perhaps to refer here to another class of cases which have
sometimes been characterised as cases of procedural ultra vires. When a statute
prescribes a manner or form in which a duty is to be performed or a power exercised,
it seldom lays down what will be the legal consequences of failure to observe its
prescription. The courts must, therefore, formulate their own criteria for determining
whether the procedural rules are to be regarded as mandatory in which case
disobedience will render void or voidable what has been done, or as directory in which
case disobedience will be treated as a mere irregularity not affecting the validity of
what has been done. A quasi-judicial authority is under an obligation to act judicially.
Suppose, it does not so act and passes an order in violation of the principles of natural
justice. What is the position then ? There are some decisions, particularly with regard
to customs authorities, where it has been held that an order of a quasi-judicial
authority given in violation of the principles of natural justice is really an order without
jurisdiction and if the order threatens or violates a fundamental right, an application
under Article 32 may lie. (See Sinha Govindji v. The Deputy Controller of Imports &
Exports, Madras MANU/SC/0032/1961 : [1962]1SCR540 . These decisions stand in
a class by themselves and really proceed on the footing that the order passed was
procedurally ultra vires and therefore without jurisdiction.
75. So far I have dealt with three main classes of cases as to which there is very little
disagreement : (1) where action is taken under an ultra vires statute; (2) where the
statute is intra vires, but the action taken is without jurisdiction; and (3) where the
action taken is procedurally ultra vires. In all these cases the question of enforcement
of a fundamental right may arise and if it does arise, an application under
Article 32 will undoubtedly lie. As to these three classes of cases there has been very
little disagreement between the parties before us.

76. Now, I come to the controversial area. What is the position with regard to an
order made by a quasi-judicial authority in the undoubted exercise of its jurisdiction in
pursuance of a provision of law which is admittedly intra vires ? It is necessary first to
clarify the concept of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means authority to decide. Whenever a
judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal is empowered or required to enquire into a question
of law or fact for the purpose of giving a decision on it, its findings thereon cannot be
impeached collaterally or on an application for certiorari but are binding until reversed
on appeal. Where a quasi-judicial authority has jurisdiction to decide a matter, it does
not lose its jurisdiction by coming to a wrong conclusion whether it is wrong in law or
in fact. The question, whether a tribunal has jurisdiction depends not on the truth or
falsehood of the facts into which it has to enquire, or upon the correctness of its
findings on these facts, but upon their nature, and it is determinable "at the
commencement, not at the conclusion, of the inquiry'. (Rex v. Bolten [1841] I Q.B.
66. Thus, a tribunal empowered to determine claims for compensation for loss of
office has jurisdiction to determine all questions of law and fact relating to the
measure of compensation and the tenure of the office, and it does not exceed its
jurisdiction by determine any of those questions incorrectly but it has no jurisdiction
to entertain a claim for reinstatement or damages for wrongful dismissal, and it will
exceed its jurisdiction if it makes an order in such terms, for it has no legal power to
give any decision whatsoever on those matters. A tribunal may lack jurisdiction if it is
improperly constituted, or if it fails to observe certain essential preliminaries to the
inquiry. But it does not exceed its jurisdiction by basing its decision upon an incorrect
determination of any question that it is empowered or required (i.e.) had jurisdiction
to determine. The strength of this theory of jurisdiction lies in its logical consistency.
But there are other cases where Parliament when it empowers an inferior tribunal to
enquire into certain facts intend to demarcate two areas of enquiry, the tribunal's
findings within one area being conclusive and with in the other area impeachable.
"The jurisdiction of an inferior tribunal may depend upon the fulfilment of some
condition precedent or upon the existence of some particular fact. Such a fact is
collateral to the actual matter which the tribunal has to try and the determination
whether it exists or not is logically prior to the determination of the actual question
which the tribunal has to try. The tribunal must itself decide as to the collateral fact
when, at the inception of an inquiry by a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, a challenge is
made to its jurisdiction, the tribunal has to make up its mind whether it will act or not,
and for that purpose to arrive at some decision on whether it has jurisdiction or not.
There may be tribunals which, by virtue of legislation constitution them, have the
power to determine finally the preliminary facts on which the further exercise of their
jurisdiction depends; but, subject to that an inferior tribunal cannot, by a wrong
decision with regard to a collateral fact, give itself a jurisdiction which it would not
otherwise possess." (Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn. Vol. 11 page 59). The
characteristic attribute of judicial act or decision is that it binds, whether it be right or
wrong. An error of law or fact committed by a judicial or quasi-judicial body cannot, in
general, be impeached otherwise than on appeal unless the erroneous determination
relates to a matter on which the jurisdiction of that body depends. These principles
govern not only the findings of inferior courts stricto sensu but also the findings of
administrative bodies which are held to be acting in a judicial capacity. Such bodies
are deemed to have been invested with power to err within the limits of their
jurisdiction; and provided that they keep within those limits, their decisions must be
accepted as valid unless set aside on appeal. Even the doctrine of res judicata has
been applied to such decisions. (See Livingstone v. Westminister Corporation [1904] 2
K.B. 109; Re Birkenhead Corporation (1952) Ch. 359 Re 56 Denton Road
Twickenham [1953] Ch. 51 Society of Medical Officers of Health v. Hope [1959] 2
W.L.R. 377, . In Burn & Co., Calcutta v. Their Employees MANU/SC/0062/1956 :
(1957)ILLJ226SC this Court said that although the rule of res judicata as enacted by
section 11 of the Code of civil Procedure did not in terms apply to an award made by
an industrial tribunal its underlying principle which is founded on sound public policy
and is of universal application must apply. In Daryao v. The State of U.P. [1961] [2]
S.C.R. 591 this Court applied the doctrine of res judicata in respect of application
under Article 32 of the Constitution. It is perhaps pertinent to observe here that when
the Allahabad High Court was moved by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution against the order of assessment, passed on an alleged misconstruction of
the notification of December 14, 1957, the High Court rejected the petition on two
grounds. The first ground given was that the petitioner had the alternative remedy of
getting the error corrected by appeal the second ground given was expressed by the
High Court in the following words :

"We have, however, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits also,
but we are not satisfied that the interpretation put upon this notification by the
Sales Tax Officer contains any obvious error in it. the circumstances make the
interpretation advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner unlikely. It is
admitted that even handmade biris have been subject to Sales Tax since long
before the date of the issue of the above notification. The object of passing the
Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Central Act No. 58 of
1957, was to levy an additional excise duty on certain important articles and
with the concurrence of the State Legislature to abolish Sales Tax on those
articles. According to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner
during the period 14th December, 1957, to 30th June, 1958, the petitioner was
liable neither to payment of excise duty nor to payment of Sales Tax. We do not
know why there should have been such an exemption. The language of the
notification might well be read as meaning that the notification is to apply only
to those goods on which an additional Central excise duty had been levied and
paid."
77. If the observations quoted above mean that the High Court rejected the petition
also on merits, apart from the other ground given, then the principle laid down in
Daryao v. The State of U.P. 1961 2 S.C.A. 591 will apply and the petition under
Article 32 will not be maintainable on the ground of res judicata. It is, however, not
necessary to pursue the question of res judicata any further, because I am resting my
decision on the more fundamental ground that an error of law or fact committed by a
judicial body cannot, in general, be impeached otherwise than on appeal unless the
erroneous determination relates to a matter on which the jurisdiction of that body
depends.

78. In Malkarjun Narhari [1950] L.R. 279 I. A, 216 the Privy Council dealt with a case
in which a sale took place after notice had been wrongly served upon a person who
was not the legal representative of the judgment-debtor's estate, and the executing
court had erroneously decided that he was to be treated as such representative. The
Privy Council said :

"In so doing the Court was exercising its jurisdiction. It made a sad mistake, it is
true; but a Court has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right. If it decides
wrong, the wronged party can only take the course prescribed by law for setting
matters right; and if that course is not taken the decision, however wrong,
cannot be disturbed".
79. The above view finds support from a number of decisions of this Court.

80. Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma v. Ministry of Rehabilitation MANU/SC/0010/1961 :

[1962]1SCR505 . In this case it had been held under the Administration of Evacuee
Property Act, 1950, that a certain person was an evacuee and that certain plots of
land which belonged to him were, therefore, evacuee property and vested in the
Custodian of Evacuee Property. A transferee of the land from the evacuee then
presented a petition under Article 32 for restoration of the lands to her and
complained of an infringement of her fundamental right, under Article 19(1)(f) and
Article 31 of the Constitution by the aforesaid orders under the Administration of
Evacuee Property Act. The petitioner had been a party to the proceedings resulting in
the declaration under that Act earlier mentioned. This Court held that as long as the
decision under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act which had become final
stood, the petitioner could not complain of any infringement of any fundamental right.
This Court dismissed the petition observing :

"We are basing our decision on the ground that the competent authorities under
the Act had come to a certain decision, which decision has now become final the
petitioner not having moved against that decision in an appropriate court by an
appropriate proceedings. As long as that decision stands, the petitioner cannot
complain of the infringement of a fundamental right, for she has not such right."
81. Gulabdas & Co. v. Assistant Collector of Customs MANU/SC/0133/1957 :
1983ECR1618D(SC) . In this case certain imported goods had been assessed to
customs tariff. The assessee continued in a petition under Article 32 that the duty
should have been charged under a different item of that tariff and that its
fundamental right was violated by reason of the assessment order charging it to duty
under a wrong item in the tariff. This Court held that there was no violation of
fundamental right and observed :

"If the provisions of law under which impugned orders have been passed are
with jurisdiction, whether they be right or wrong on fact, there is really no
question of the infraction of a fundamental right. If a particular decision is
erroneous on facts or merits, the proper remedy is by way of an appeal".
82. Bhatnagar & Co. Ltd. v. The Union of India MANU/SC/0017/1957 :
1983ECR1607D(SC) . In this case the Government had held that the petitioner had
been trafficking in licences and in that view confiscated the goods imported under a
licence. A petition had been filed under Article 32 challenging this action. It was held :

"If the petitioner's grievance is that the view taken by the appropriate authority
in this matter is erroneous, that is not a matter which can be legitimately
agitated before us in a petition under Article 32".
83. The Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority,
Aurangabad MANU/SC/0248/1960 : [1960]3SCR177 . In this case it was contended
that the decision of the Transport Authority in granting a permit for a motor carriage
service had offended Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court held that the decision of
a quasi-judicial body, right or wrong, could not offend Article 14.

84. There are, however, two decisions which stand out and must be mentioned here.
A contrary view was taken in Kailash Nath v. The State of U.P. MANU/SC/0136/1957
: AIR1957SC790 There a question precisely the same as the one now before us had
arisen. A trader assessed to sales tax had claimed exemption under certain
notification and this claim had been rejected. Thereupon he had moved this Court
under Article 32. It was contended that the right to be exempted from the payment of
tax was not a fundamental right and therefore, the petition under Article 32 was not
competent. This Court rejected that contention basing itself on Bengal Immunity
Company's case MANU/SC/0083/1955 : [1955]2SCR603 and Bidi Supply Co's case
([1956] S.C.R. 267.). The two cases on which the decision was rested had clearly no
application to the question decided. I have shown earlier that in both those cases the
very statute under which action had been taken was challenged as ultra vires. In
Kailash Nath's case MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 the question was not
considered from the point of view in which it has been placed before us in the present
case and in which it was considered in the four cases referred to above. therefore, I
am unable to agree with the view taken in Kailash Nath's case MANU/SC/0136/1957
: AIR1957SC790 .

85. In Ramavatar Budhai Prasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer MANU/SC/0320/1961

: [1962]1SCR279 the question raised was whether betel leaves were exempted
from sales tax under certain provisions of the C.P. & Berar Sales Tax Act. This Court
agreed with the view of the assessing authority that they were not exempted. The
question as to the maintainability of the application under Article 32 was neither
raised nor was it decided. This decision cannot, therefore, be taken as an authority for
holding that an application under Article 32 is maintainable even in respect of orders
which are made in the undoubted exercise of jurisdiction by a quasi-judicial authority.

86. Certain other decisions were also cited before us, namely, Thakur Amar Singhji v.
State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0013/1955 : [1955]2SCR303 ; M/s. Mohanlal
Hargovind Dass v. The State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0082/1955 :
[1955]2SCR509 ; Y. Mahaboob Sheriff v. Mysore State Transport
Authority MANU/SC/0189/1959 : [1960]2SCR146 , J. V. Gokal & Co. (Private) Ltd.
v. The Assistant Collector of Sales tax (Inspection) MANU/SC/0269/1960 :
[1960]2SCR852 ; and Universal Imports Agency v. Chief controller of Imports and
Exports MANU/SC/0010/1960 : [1961]1SCR305 . These decisions fall under the
category in which an executive authority acts without authority of law, or a quasi-
judicial authority acts in transgression of a constitutional prohibition and without
jurisdiction. I do not think that these decisions support the contention of the
petitioner.

87. In my opinion, the correct answer to the two questions which have been referred
to this larger Bench must be in the negative. An order of assessment made by an
authority under a taxing statute which is intra vires and in the undoubted exercise of
its jurisdiction cannot be challenged on the sole ground that it is passed on a
misconstruction of a provision of the Act or of a notification issued thereunder. Nor
can the validity of such an order be questioned in a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution. The proper remedy for correcting an error in such an order is to proceed
by way of appeal, or if the error is an error apparent on the face of the record, then
by an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is necessary to observe here
that Article 32 of the Constitution does not give this Court an appellate jurisdiction
such as is given by Arts 132 to 136. Article 32 guarantees the right to a constitutional
remedy and relates only to the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III of the
Constitution. Unless a question of the enforcement of a fundamental right arises,
Article 32 does not apply. There can be no question of the enforcement of a
fundamental right if the order challenged is a valid and legal order, in spite of the
allegation that it is erroneous. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that no
question of the enforcement of fundamental right arises in this case and the writ
petition is not maintainable.

88. It is necessary to refer to one last point. The petitioner's firm had also field an
appeal on a certificate of the Allahabad High Court against the order of that Court
dismissing their petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appeal against that
order was dismissed by this court for non-prosecution on February 20, 1961. In
respect of that order of dismissal the petitioner's firm has field an application for
restoration on the ground that it had been advised that in view of a rule having been
issued under Article 32 of the Constitution, it was not necessary to prosecute the
appeal. The petitioner's firm has prayed for condonation, of delay in filing the
application for restoration of appeal. In my opinion no sufficient cause has been made
out for allowing the application for restoration. The petitioner's firm had deliberately
allowed the appeal to be dismissed for non-prosecution and it cannot now be allowed
to get the dismissal set aside on the ground of wrong advice.

89. Furthermore, in the appeal filed on behalf of M/s. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel &
Co. v. The Sales Tax Officer, Agra and another (Civil Appeal No. 99 of 1961) we have
decided the question on merits and have held that the assessing authorities did not
put a wrong construction on the notification in question.

J.L. Kapur, J.

90. In this petition under Article 32 of the constitution which is directed against the
order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad, dated December 20, 1958, the
prayer is for a writ of certiorari or other order in the nature of certiorari quashing the
said order, a writ of mandamus against the respondents to forbear from realizing the
sales tax imposed on the basis of the said order and such other writ or direction as the
petitioner may be entitled to.

91. The petitioner is a partner in the firm M/s. Mohanlal Hargovind Das which carried
on the business of manufacture and sale of handmade biris, their head office being in
Jubbalpore in the State of Madhya Pradesh. They also carry on business in U.P., and in
that State their principal place of business is at Allahabad.

92. Under section 4(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (Act XV of 1948) hereinafter called
the 'Act', the State Government is authorised by a notification to exempt
unconditionally under clause (a) and conditionally under clause (b) any specified
goods. On December 14, 1957, the U.P. Government issued a notification under
section 4(1)(b) of the Act exempting cigars, cigarettes, biris and tobacco provided that
the additional Central Excise Duties leviable under the Additional Duties of Excise
(Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (Act 58 of 1957) had been paid. This
notification was subsequently modified and on November 25, 1958, another
notification was issued unconditionally exempting from sales tax biris both handmade
and machine-made with effect from July 1, 1958. The exemption of biris from sales
tax was conditional under the notification dated December 14, 1957, for the period
December 14, 1957, to June 30, 1958, but was unconditional as from July 1, 1958.

93. The petitioner's firm submitted its return for the quarter beginning April 1, 1958,
to June 30, 1958, showing a gross turnover of Rs. 75,44,633 and net turnover of Rs.
111. The firm claimed that as from December 14, 1957, biris had been exempted from
payment of sales tax which had been replaced by the additional central excise duty
and therefore no tax was leviable on the sale of biris. The requisite sales tax of Rs.
3.51 nP. on the turnover of Rs. 111 was deposited as required under the law. The
petitioner's firm also submitted its return for the periods December 14, 1957, to
December 31, 1957, and from January 1, 1958, to March 31, 1958. For the
subsequent periods returns were made but those are not in dispute as they fell within
the notification of November 25, 1958. The Sales Tax officer on November 28, 1958,
sent a notice to the petitioner's firm for assessment of tax on sale of biris during the
assessment period April 1, 1958, to June 30, 1958. On December 10, 1958, the
petitioner's firm submitted an application to the Sales Tax Officer stating that no sales
tax was exigible under the Act on the sale of biris because of the notification dated
December 14, 1957. This place was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer and on
December 20, 1958, he assessed the sales of the petitioner's firm to sales tax
amounting to Rs. 4,71,541.75 nP. In his order the Sales Tax Officer held :-
"The exemption envisaged in this notification applies to dealers in respect of
sales of biris provided that the additional Central Excise duties leviable thereon
from the closing of business on 13-12-1957 have been paid on such goods. The
assessees paid no such Excise duties. Sales of biris by the assessees are
therefore liable to sales tax".
94. Against this order the firm took an appeal under section 9 of the Act to the Judge
(Appeals) Sales Tax, Allahabad, being Appeal No. 441 of 1959, but it was dismissed
on May 1, 1959.

95. The petitioner's firm filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the
High Court of Allahabad challenging the validity of the order of assessment and
demand by the Sales Tax Officer. This was civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 225 of 1959
which was dismissed on January 27, 1959 on the ground that there was another
remedy open to the petitioner under the Act. The High Court also observed :-

"We have come to the conclusion that the Sales Tax Officer has not committed
any apparent or obvious error in the interpretation of the notification of 14th
December 1957".
96. Against the order of the High Court an appeal was brought to this Court on a
certificate under Article 133(1)(a). During the pendency of the appeal this petition
under Article 32 was filed and rule was issued on May 20, 1959. Subsequently the
appeal which had been numbered C-A. 572/60 was dismissed by a Divisional Bench of
this Court for non-prosecution. An application has been filed in this Court for
restoration of the appeal and for condonation of delay. That matter will be dealt with
separately.

97. In the petition under Article 32 the validity of the order of assessment dated
December 20, 1958, is challenged on the ground that the levy of the tax amounts to
"infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on trade and business
guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g)" and further that it is an 'illegal confiscations of
property without payment of compensation and contravenes the provisions of
Article 31 of the Constitution". The prayers have already been set out above.

98. As before the Constitution Bench which heard the petition a preliminary objection
against the competency of the petitioner's right to move this court under Article 32 of
the Constitution, was raised and the correctness of the decision in Kailash Nath v. The
State of U.P., MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 was challenged, the
Constitution Bench because of that decision and of certain other decisions of this court
and because of the importance of the question raised made the following order :

"The question thus debated is of considerable importance on which

there has been no direct pronouncement by this court. It seems
desirable that it should be authoritatively settled. We accordingly direct
that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice for constituting a
larger Bench for deciding the two following questions :

1. Is an order of assessment made by an authority under a

taxing statute which is intra vires open to challenge as
repugnant to Article 19(1)(g), on the sole ground that it is based
on a misconstruction of a provision of the Act or of a notification
issued thereunder ?".

2. Can the validity of such an order be questioned in a petition

under Article 32 of the Constitution ?"
99. That is how this matter has come up before this bench.

100. Before examining the rival contentions raised and the controversy between the
parties it is necessary to state that (i) in the present case we are not called upon to
decide whether clauses (f) and (g) of Article 19 are applicable to a taxing statute or to
express our preference for the view of this court as expressed in a group of cases
beginning with Ramjilal v. Income-tax Officer, Mohindergarh MANU/SC/0057/1951 :
[1951]19ITR174(SC) over the later view taken in the second
Kochunni MANU/SC/0019/1960 : [1960]3SCR887 case or K. T. Moopil Nair v. State
of Kerala MANU/SC/0042/1960 : [1961]3SCR77 whether the word "State" in
Article 12 of the Constitution Comprises judicial power exercised by courts and (3) the
wider question whether Article 32 is applicable in the case of infringement of rights by
private parties. The controversy in the present case in this; the petitioner contends
that an erroneous order, in this case, of assessment resulting from a misconstruction
of a notification issued under a statute by a quasi-judicial authority like the Sales Tax
Officer even if the statute is intra vires is an infringement of the fundamental right to
carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) on the ground that the essence of the right
under that Article is to carry on trade unfettered and that such a right can be infringed
as much by an executive act of an administrative tribunal as by a quasi-judicial
decision given by such a tribunal. The petitioner mainly relies on the decision of this
Court in Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0057/1951 : [1951]19ITR174(SC) .

101. The submission of the respondent, which was urged as a preliminary objection to
the maintainability of this petition, was that the impugned decision of the Sales tax
Officer does not violate any fundamental right. The respondent argued that if the
constitutionality of the Act is not challenged then all its provisions must necessarily be
constitutional and valid including the provisions for the imposition of the tax and
procedure for assessment and appeals against such assessments and revisions
therefrom would be equally valid. A decision by the Sales tax Officer exercising quasi-
judicial power and acting within his powers under the Act and within his jurisdiction
must necessarily be valid and legal irrespective of whether the decision is right or
wrong. therefore an order of the Sales tax Officer even if erroneous because of
misconstruction of notification issued thereunder remains a valid and legal order and a
tax levied thereunder cannot contravene fundamental rights and cannot be challenged
under Article 32. An aggrieved party must proceed against the decision by way of
appeal etc. as provided under the statute or in appropriate cases under Article 226 of
the Constitution and finally by appeal to this Court under Article 136. For the order to
be valid and immune from challenge under Article 32, it is necessary therefore that
(1) the statute is intra vires in all respects; (2) the authority acting under it acts
quasi-judicially; (3) it acts within the powers given by the Act and within jurisdiction;
and (4) it does not contravene rules of natural justice.

102. In Mulkarjun Bin Shidramappa Pasare v. Narhari Bin

Shivappa MANU/PR/0014/1900 , Lord Hobhouse while dealing with an erroneous
order of a court said :

"The Code goes on to say that the Court shall issue a notice to the party against
whom execution is applied. It did issue notice to Ramlingappa. He contended
that he was not the right person, but the Court, having received his protest,
decided that he was the right person, and so proceeded with the execution. It
made a sad mistake it is true; but a Court has jurisdiction to decide wrong as
well as right. If it decided wrong, the wronged party can only take the course
prescribed by law for setting matters right; and if that course is not taken the
decision, however wrong, cannot be disturbed."
103. In an earlier case dealing with the revisional powers of the Court, Sir Barnes
Peacock in Rajah Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh [1884] L.R. 11 IndAp
237 said :-

"The question then is, did the judges of the Lower Courts in this case, in the
exercise of their jurisdiction, act illegally or with material irregularity. It appears
that they had perfect jurisdiction to decide the question which was before them,
and they did decide it. Whether they decided it rightly or wrongly they had
jurisdiction to decide the case; and even if they decided wrongly, they did not
exercise their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity".
104. This principal has been accepted by this Court in cases to which reference will be
made later in this judgment. Although these cases were dealing with the decisions of
Courts they are equally applicable to decisions of quasi-judicial tribunals because to
both cases where the authority has jurisdiction to decide a matter it must have
jurisdiction to decide it rightly or wrongly and if the decision is wrong the aggrieved
party can have recourse to the procedure prescribed by the Act for correcting the
erroneous decision.

105. Now Article 32 is a remedial provision and is itself a fundamental right which
entitles a citizen to approach this court by an original petition in any case where his
fundamental right has been or may be infringed. The relevant part of the Article
provides :-

Article 32(1) "The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate

proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is
guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, que
warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part".

106. Under Article 32(1) a citizen can approach this Court when his fundamental
rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution are invaded the remedy for which
is provided in clause (2) of Article 32. Thus the remedy under Article 32 is not
available unless the fundamental rights of a citizen are invaded.

107. In my opinion the contention raised by the respondents is well founded. If the
statute and it constitutionality is not challenged then every pars of it is constitutionally
valid including the provisions authorising the levying of a tax and the mode and
procedure for assessment and appeals etc. A determination of a question by a Sales
tax Officer acting within his jurisdiction must be equally valid and legal. In such a case
an erroneous construction, assuming it is erroneous, is in respect of a matter which
the statute has given the authority complete jurisdiction to decide. The decision is
therefore a valid act irrespective of its being erroneous.

108. An order of assessment passed by a quasi-judicial tribunal under a statute which

is ultra vires cannot be equated with an assessment order passed by that tribunal
under an intra vires statute even though erroneous. The former being with out
authority of law, is wholly unauthorised and has no existence in law and therefore the
order is an infringement of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) & (g) and can be
challenged under Article 32. The latter is not unconstitutional and has the protection
of law being under the authority of a valid law and therefore it does not infringe any
fundamental right and cannot be impugned under Article 32. To say that the doing of
a legal act violates a fundamental right would be a contradiction in terms. It many be
pointed out that by an erroneous decision of the quasi-judicial authority the wronged
party is not left without a remedy. In the first place under the Act before an
assessment is made the Sales tax Officer is required to give notice and hear
objections of a taxpayer and give decision after proceeding in a judicial manner that is
after considering the objection, and such evidence as is led. Against the order of
assessment an appeal is provided by section 9 of the Act and against such an
appellate order a revision can be taken under section 10 of the Act under section 11 a
reference to the High Court on a question of law is provided and if the revising
authority refuses to make a reference then the High Court can be moved to direct the
revising authority to state a case and then an appeal would lie under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India and it may be added that a petition under Article 226 would lie to
the High Court in appropriate cases against which an appeal will lie to this Court under
Article 136. It may here be added that the procedure prescribed by the Act shows that
the Sales tax Officer has to determine the turnover after giving the taxpayer a
reasonable opportunity of being heard and such an assessment is a quasi-judicial act
Province of Bombay v. Kusaldas S. Advani MANU/SC/0034/1950 : [1950]1SCR621 .
If a Sales tax Officer acts a quasi-judicial authority then the decision, whether right or
wrong, is a perfectly valid act which has the authority of an intra vires statute behind
it. Such a decision, in my opinion, does not infringe any fundamental right of the
petitioner and any challenge to it under Article 32 is unsustainable.

109. Before giving the reasons for any opinion I think it necessary to refer to the
constitutional provisions dealing with the power to tax. This subject is dealt with in
Part XII of Constitution and Article 265 therein which is the governing provision
provides :-

"No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law."

110. therefore a taxing law enacted by a legislature, which it is not competent to
enact, will have no existence in the eye of law and will be violative of Article 19(1)(g).
The same result will follow if the law is a colourable piece of legislation e.g., a law
disguised as a taxing law but really law but confiscatory measure the object of which
is not to raise revenue but confiscation. Similarly, if a tax is assessed by an authority
which has no jurisdiction to impose it will also be outside the protection of law being
without authority of law. The same will be the case where an Executive authority
levies an unauthorised tax. Then there are cases like the present one where a quasi-
judicial tribunal imposes a tax by interpreting a notification under a taxing provision
and the objection taken is that the interpretation is erroneous. The cases relied upon
by counsel for the appellant and the respondent fall within one or other of these
categories.

111. As I have said above, the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General
is well founded. It has the support of the following decisions of this Court which I shall
now deal with. In Gulabdas v. Assistant Collector of Custom MANU/SC/0133/1957 :
1983ECR1618D(SC) it was held that if the order impugned is made under the
provisions of a statue which is intra vires and the order is within the jurisdiction of the
authority making it then whether it is right or wrong, there is no infraction of the
fundamental rights and it has to be challenged in the manner provided in the Statute
and not by a petition under Article 32. In that case the petitioner was aggrieved by
the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs who assessed the goods imported
under a licence under a different entry and consequently a higher Excise Duty was
imposed. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order field a petition under
Article 32 and the objection to its maintainability was that the application could not be
sustained because no fundamental right had been violated by the impugned order it
having been properly and correctly made by the authorities competent to make it. The
petitioner there contended that the goods imported, which were called 'Lyra' brand
Crayons were not crayons at all and therefore imposition of a higher duty by holding
them to be crayons was an infringement of fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) &
(g). This contention was repelled. Delivering the judgment of the Court, S. K. Das, J.,
observed at p. 736 :-

"What, after all, is the grievance of the petitioners ? They do not

challenge any of the provisions of the India Traiff Act, 1934 (XXXII of
1934) or any of the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (VIII of
1878). It is for the Customs authorities to determine under the
provisions of the said Acts what duty is payable in respect of certain
imported article. The Customs authorities came to a decisions, right or
wrong, and the petitioners pursued their remedy by way of an appeal to
the Central Board of Revenue.

The Central Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal. Unless the

provisions relating to the imposition of duty are challenged as
unconstitutional, or the orders in question are challenged as being in
excess of the powers given to the Customs authorities and therefore
without jurisdiction it is difficult to see how the question of any
fundamental right under Article 19(1) clauses (f) & (g) of the
Constitution can at all arise.

If the provisions of law under which the impugned orders have been
passed are good provisions and the orders passed are with jurisdiction,
whether they be right or wrong on facts, there is really no question of
the infraction of a fundamental right. If a particular decision is
erroneous on facts or merits the proper remedy is by way of an appeal.

All that is really contended is that the orders are erroneous on merits.
That surely does not give rise to the violation of any fundamental right
under Article 19 of the Constitution."

112. The second case is Bhatnagar Co. Ltd. v. The Union of

India MANU/SC/0017/1957 : 1983ECR1607D(SC) . In that case the Sea Customs
authorities ordered the confiscation of goods on the ground that the petitioner had
been trafficking in licenses under which the goods had been imported. This order was
challenged under Article 32. It was held that the order of confiscation made as a result
of investigation, which the Customs Authorities were competent to make, was not
open to challenge in proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution on the ground
that the conclusions were not properly drawn. It was observed :-

"If the petitioner's grievance is that the view taken by the appropriate
authorities in this matter is erroneous that is not a matter which can be
legitimately agitated before us is a petition under Article 32. It may perhaps be,
as the learned Solicitor General suggested, that the petitioner may have remedy
by suit for damages but that is a matter with which we are not concerned. If the
goods have been seized in accordance with law and they have been seized as a
result of the findings recorded by the relevant authorities competent to hold
enquiry under the Sea Customs Act, it is not open to the petitioners to contend
that we should ask the authorities to exercise discretion in favour of the
petitioner and allow his licences a further lease of life. Essentially the petitioner's
grievance is against the conclusions of fact reached by the relevant authorities."
113. The third case is The Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. The
Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad MANU/SC/0248/1960 : [1960]3SCR177
where the decision of a Transport Authority in granting a motor carriage permit was
challenged as a contravention of Article 14. The Court held that the Regional
Transport Authority acts in a quasi-judicial capacity in the matter of granting permits,
and if it comes to an erroneous decisions the decision is not challengeable under
Article 32 of the Constitution because the decision right or wrong could not infringe
Article 14. Sarkar J., said at p. 188 :-

"The decision of respondent No. 1 (Regional Transport Authority) may have been
right or wrong........ but we are unable to see that the decision offends
Article 14 or any other fundamental right of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1
was acting as a quasi-judicial body if it has made any mistake in its decision
there are appropriate remedies available to the petitioner for obtaining relief. It
cannot complain of a breach of Article 14".
114. Lastly reliance was placed on an unreported judgment of this Court in Aniyoth
Kunhamina Umma v. The Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, New
Delhi MANU/SC/0010/1961 : [1962]1SCR505 . The petitioner in that case was a
representative-in-interest of her husbands who had been declared an evacuee by the
Custodian of Evacuee property. Her appeals first to the Deputy Custodian and then to
the Custodian General were unsuccessful. She then field a petition under Article 32 of
the constitution. It was held that the appropriate authorities of competent jurisdiction
under the Administration of Evacuee property Act 1950 having determined that the
husband was an evacuee within that Act and the property was evacuee property it
was not open to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Custodian General
under Article 32 of the Constitutions. S. K. Das, J., delivering the judgment of the
Court observed :-

"Where, however, on account of the decision of an authority competent

jurisdiction the right alleged by the petitioner has been found not to exist, it is
difficult to see how any question of infringement at right can arise as a ground
for a petition under Article 32 of the constitution unless the decision on the right
alleged by the petitioner is held to be a nullity or can be otherwise got rid of. As
long as that decision stands, the petitioner cannot complain of any infringement
of a fundamental right. The alleged fundamental right of the petitioner is really
dependent on whether Kunhi Moosa Haji was an evacuee property. Is the
decision of the appropriate authorities of competent jurisdiction cannot complain
be otherwise got rid of, the petitioner cannot complain of her fundamental right
under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution".
115. These authorities show (1) that if a statute is intra vires than a competent order
under it by an authority acting as a quasi-judicial authority is equally intra vires (2)
that the decision whether right or wrong is not violative of any fundamental right and
(3) that if the order is erroneous then it can be questioned only under the provisions
of that statute because the order will not amount to an infringement of a fundamental
right as long as the statute is constitutional. In appropriate case it may be challenged
under Article 226 and in both cases an appeal lies to this Court.

116. I may now examine decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned Attorney
General in which the operation of taxation laws as violating Article 19(1)(g) was
considered and the procedure by which this Court was approached. In support of his
case the Attorney General mainly relied on Kailash Nath v. State of
U.P. MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 and tried to buttress that decision by
certain cases decided before and subsequent to it. He submitted that a
misconstruction of a provision of law even by a quasi-judicial tribunal is equally an
infringement of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) & (g) because as a
consequence of such misconstruction the tax is an illegal imposition. In Kailash Nath's
case it was contended before the Sales tax Authorities that cloths, on which Excise
duty had already been paid and which was then processed, hand-printed and
exported, no sales tax was leviable as it was exempt under the notification under
section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Authorities however held the
exemption to be applicable only to cloth which had not been processed and hand-
printed and was in the original condition. A petition under Article 32 was filed against
that order and it was contended that the rights of the assessee under Article 19(1)(g)
were infringed by the order misinterpreting the notification. the Court said :-

"If a tax is levied without due legal authority on any trade or business, then it is
open to the citizen aggrieved to approach this court for a writ under
Article 32 since his right to carry on trade is violated or infringed by the
imposition and such being the case, Article 19(1)(g) comes into play".
117. The objection there taken on behalf of the State was in the following terms :-

"That the imposition of an illegal tax will not entitle the citizen to invoke
Article 32 but he must resort to remedies available under ordinary law or
proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution, in view of the fact that the right to
be exempted from the payment of tax cannot be said to be a fundamental right
which comes within the purview of Article 32".
118. This contention was repelled because of the following observations in the Bengal
Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0083/1955 : [1955]2SCR603 :

"We are unable to agree the above conclusion. In reaching the conclusion the
High Court appears to have overlooked the fact that the main contention of the
appellant company, as set forth in its petition, is that the Act, in so far as it
purports to tax a non-resident dealer in respect of an inter-State sale or
purchase of goods, is ultra vires the Constitution and wholly illegal........."
119. The other cases referred to in that judgment were Mohammad Yasin v. Town
Area Committee, Jalalabad MANU/SC/0012/1952 : [1952]1SCR572 ; State of
Bombay v. United Motors MANU/SC/0095/1953 : [1953]4SCR1069 ; Himmatlal
Harilal Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0021/1954 : [1954]1SCR1122
and Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India [1956] S.C.R. 257. Thus the decision in that
case was based on decisions none of which supports the proposition that a
misconstruction by a quasi-judicial tribunal of a notification under the provision of a
statute which is intra vires is a violation of Article 19(1)(g). On the other hand they
were all cases where the imposition of tax or license fee or executive action was
sought to be supported by an ultra vires provision of the law and was therefore void
and violative of Article 19(1)(g). As this distinction was not kept in view the remedy
by way of petition under Article 32 was held to be available. The question as now
raised was not argued in Kailash Nath's case.

120. The distinction between a competence order of assessment made under a

provision of law which is intra vires even if it is erroneous and an order made under a
provision of law which is ultra vires in fundamental in the matter of applicability of
Article 32. In the former case the provision of law being valid the order will be
protected as being under the authority of a valid law and therefore it will not be
violative of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 32 is not available to challenge that order. In
the latter case, the provisions of law being void the protection of law does not operate
and the order is an unauthorised interference with the rights of a citizen under Article
Article 19(1)(g). It can therefore be challenged under Article 32. This distinction does
not seem to have been kept in view in Kailash Nath's case MANU/SC/0136/1957 :
AIR1957SC790 . That case is further open to the criticism that it is based on decisions
which were not cases of erroneous interpretations of notifications under intra vires
statutes but were cases where an unconstitutional provision of law was sought to be
used to support a tax. For the reasons I have given Kailash Nath's
case MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 cannot be accepted as well founded".

121. In yet another case where the remedy under Article 32 was sought to challenge
the decision of a Sales Tax Officer is Ramavtar Budhaiprasad etc. v. Assistant Sales
tax officer, Akola MANU/SC/0320/1961 : [1962]1SCR279 . There a Sales tax Officer
on a construction of a Schedule of the Sales Tax Act had held that betel leaves were
subject to sales tax as they were not vegetables which were exempt from that tax and
this Court upheld that decision. The question as to the availability of Article 32 was
not raised.

122. Besides Kailash Nath's case which I have dealt with above the other case relied
upon by the learned Attorney General fall within the following category in none of
which the question as now argued arose or was considered.

(1) Where the tax imposed or action taken is under a statute which is
unconstitutional.

(2) Where the Executive action is without authority of law.

(3) Where the taxing authority imposes a tax or acts without authority
of law.

(4) Where the quasi-judicial authority without having jurisdiction

determines a fact or gives a decision.

I shall now discuss the cases which fall in the first category i.e. where action is taken
under a statute which is unconstitutional. The action taken thereunder must
necessarily be unconstitutional which is challengeable by an aggrieved party under
Article 32.

123. In Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v. The State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0021/1954

: [1954]1SCR1122 sales tax was neither levied nor demanded but apprehending
that an illegal sales tax may be assessed and levied a petition under Article 226 was
filed in the High Court which was dismissed and an appeal was brought to this Court
and thus it was not a petition under Article 32. In that case the sales tax under
explanation II to section 2(g) of the Central Provinces & Berar Sales tax Act (Act 2 of
1947) was held ultra vires of the State Legislature because it offended Article
286(1)(a) and its imposition or threat of imposition was held without authority of law
and therefore infringement of the constitutional right guaranteed under Article
19(1)(g) entitling the petitioner to apply under Article 226 of the constitution. This
case therefore decided that a tax under an Act which is unconstitutional ultra vires
and void is without authority of law under Article 265 and is an infringement of Article
19(1)(g). This case and Ramjilal's case MANU/SC/0057/1951 : [1951]19ITR174(SC)
received approval in The Bengal Immunity Co. case (1953) 2 S.C.R. 603. In the
Bengal Immunity case also the right infringed was by an Act which was ultra vires and
the remedy under the Act was held to be inadequate, nugatory or useless. The facts of
that case were that the appellant company filed a petition under Article 226 in the
High Court of Patna for a writ of prohibition restraining the Sales tax Officer from
making an assessment of sales tax pursuant to a notice issued by him. the appellant
claimed that sales sought to be assessed were made in the course of inter-State
trade, that the provision of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Bihar Act 19 of 1947) which
authorised the imposition of tax on such sales were repugnant to Article 286(2) and
void, and that, therefore, the proceedings taken by the Sales tax Officer should be
quashed. The application was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that if the
Sales tax Officer should be quashed. The made an assessment which was erroneous,
the assessee could challenge it by way of appeal or revision under sections 24 and 25
of the Act and that as the matter was within the jurisdiction of the Sales tax Officer,
no writ of prohibition or certiorari could be issued. There was an appeal against this
order to this Court and therein a preliminary objection was taken that a writ under
Article 226 not the appropriate remedy open to an assessee for challenging the
legality of the proceedings before a Sales tax Officer. In rejecting this contention, this
Court observed :-

"It is, however, clear from article 265 that no tax can be levied or collected
except by authority of law which must mean a good and valid law. The
contention of the appellant company is that the Act which authorises the
assessment, levying and collection of sales tax on inter-State trade contravenes
and constitutes an infringement of Article 286 and is, therefore, ultra vires, void
and unenforceable. If, however, this contention be well founded, the remedy by
way of a writ must, on principle and authority, be available to the party
aggrieved."
124. And dealing with the, contention that the petitioner should proceed by way of
appeal or revision under the Act, this Court observed :-

"The answer to this plea is short and simple. The remedy under the Act cannot
be said to be adequate and is, indeed nugatory or useless if the Act which
provides for such remedy is itself ultra vires and void and the principle relied
upon can, therefore, have no application were a party comes to Court with an
allegation that his right has been or is being threatened to be infringed by a law
which is ultra vires the powers of the legislature which enacted it and as such
void and prays for a appropriate relief under article 226. " (p. 620).
125. It will be seen that the question which arose in that case was with reference to a
provision in a taxing statute which was ultra vires and the decision was only that
action taken under such a provision was without the authority of law and was,
therefore, an unconstitutional interference with the right to carry on business under
Article 19(1)(g).

126. In Mohmmad Yasin v. The Town Area Committee,

Jalalabad MANU/SC/0012/1952 : [1952]1SCR572 the imposition of the license fee
was without authority of law and was therefore held to be challengeable under
Article 32 because such a license fee on a business not only takes away the property
of the licensee but also operates as on reasonable restriction on the right to carry on
business. In Balaji v. The Income Tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle,
Akola (1952) 2 S.C.R. 983 the Income tax Officer included, after the registration of a
firm, the income of the wife and of the minor children who had been admitted to
partnership.

127. The assessee attacked the constitutionality of section 16(3)(a)(i)(ii) of the

Income tax Act. The first question there raised was of the legislative competence of
Parliament to enact the law and that Parliament was held competent to enact.
Secondly the constitutionality of the provision was questioned on the ground that it
violated the doctrine of equality before the law under Article 14 of the Constitution
and that ground was also repelled and it was held that the legislature had selected for
the purpose of classification only that group of persons who in fact are used as a cloak
to perpetuate fraud of taxation. The third ground of attack was based on Article
19(1)(f) & (g) of constitution. Relying upon the case of Mohd. Yasin v. Town Area
Committee MANU/SC/0012/1952 : [1952]1SCR572 which was a case of license fees
and Himmatlal Hiralal Mehta's case MANU/SC/0021/1954 : [1954]1SCR1122 in
which there was no determination by any tribunal but there was a threat of an illegal
imposition, the court held that not only must law be valid in the sense of there being
legislative competence, it must also not infringes the fundamental rights declared by
the constitution. This again was not a case of a determination of a question by a
taxing authority acting quasi-judicially but the constitutionality and vires of the statute
were challenged.

128. The second category of cases is were the Taxing Authority imposes a tax or acts
without authority of law and the assessment made by the Taxing Authority is without
jurisdiction. Tata Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., v. S. R. Sarkar MANU/SC/0270/1960 :
[1961]1SCR379 was a case under the Central Sales Tax Act under which sales in the
course of inter-State trade are liable to be taxed only once and by one State on behalf
of the Central Government. The petitioner company in that case was assessed to tax
of certain sales falling within that Act by the Central Sales Officer, Bihar and the tax
was paid. They were again taxed by the Central Sales tax Office, West Bengal who
held that under the statute that was the "Appropriate State" to levy the tax as the
sites of sale was in West Bengal and that was assailed under Article 32. The objection
to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that an appeal against the order of
assessment could be taken and that proceedings under Article 32 were incompetent
was overrules. Shah J., in delivering the judgment of the majority referred to the
decision of this Court in Himmatlal Harilal Mehta's case, ((1954) S.C.R. 1122.); The
Bengal Immunity Co. case MANU/SC/0083/1955 : [1955]2SCR603 and the State of
Bombay v. United Motors India Ltd. MANU/SC/0095/1953 : [1953]4SCR1069 and
observed as follows :-

"In these cases, in appeal from orders passed by the High Courts in petitions
under Article 226, this Court held that an attempt to levy tax under a statute
which was ultra vires infringed the fundamental right of the citizen and recourse
to the High Court for protection of the fundamental right was not prohibited
because of the provisions contained in Article 265. In the case before us, the
vires of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, are not challenged; but in Kailash Nath
v. The State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 a petition
challenging the levy of a tax was entertained by this Court even though the Act
under the authority of which the tax was sought to be recovered was not
challenged as ultra vires. It is not necessary for purposes of this case to decide
whether the principle of Kailash Nath's case is inconsistent with the view
expressed by this Court in Ramjilal's case MANU/SC/0057/1951 :
[1951]19ITR174(SC) ".
129. The learned Judges also held that the statute made impossible to levy two taxes
on the same sale and only one tax being payable it could be collected on behalf of the
Government of India by one State only and one sale could not be taxed twice. It
having been collected once the threat to recover it again was Prima facie in
infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioner. Sarkar, J., who gave the
minority judgment observed :-

"In Kailash Nath v. The State of U.P. A.I.R. 1947 S.C. 790, this Court held that
an illegal levy of sales tax on a trader under an Act the legality of which was not
challenged violates his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) and a petition
under Article 32 with respect to such violation lies. The earlier case of Ramjilal v.
Income tax Officer, Mohindergarh MANU/SC/0057/1951 : [1951]19ITR174(SC)
does not appear to have been considered. It is contended that the decision in
Kailash Nath's case requires reconsideration. We do not think however that the
present is a fit case to go into the question whether the two cases not
reconcilable and to decide the preliminary question raised. The point was taken
as a late stage of proceedings after much costs had been incurred. The question
arising on this petition is further of general importance a decision of which is
desirable in the interest of all concerned. As there is at least one case supporting
the competence of the petition, we think it fit to decide this petition on its merits
on the footing that it is competent".
130. It cannot be said that this case is an authority which supports the contention of
the petitioner. Apart from the fact that Kailash Nath's case MANU/SC/0136/1957 :
AIR1957SC790 did not receive approval it was decided on the ground of the Central
Sates tax being a tax, which could be collected on a sale once and by one State on
behalf of the Government of India, and having been imposed and paid once could not
be imposed a second time. In other words it was a tax which was without jurisdiction
and therefore fell within Article 12(1)(f).

131. A similar case also relied upon by the petitioner is J. V. Gokal & Co. (Private) Ltd.
v. The Assistant Collector of Sales Tax (Inspection) MANU/SC/0269/1960 :
[1960]2SCR852 . The There the petitioner had entered into contracts with the
Government of India for the supply of certain quantities of foreign sugar. When the
goods were on the high seas the petitioner delivered to the Government shipping
documents pertaining to the foods and received the price. On their arrival they were
taken possession of by the Government of India after paying the requisite customs
duty. For the assessment year 1954-55 the petitioner was assessed to sales tax in
calculating which the price of the sales made to the Government of India deducted.
The Assistant Collector of Sales tax issued a notice to the petitioner proposing to
review the said assessment passed by the Sales tax Officer. Objections were filed but
were rejected and it was held by the Assistant Collector that sales tax was payable in
respect of the two transactions. Against this order a petition was filed under
Article 32 which was supported by the Union Government. It was contended by the
petitioner that the sales in question were not liable to sales tax inasmuch as they took
place in the course of import of goods into India. This Court held that the property in
the goods passed to the Government of India when the shipping documents were
delivered against payment and that the sales of goods by the petitioner to the
Government took place when the goods were on the high seas and were therefore
exempt from sales tax under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution. This was also a
case of lack of legislative authority and jurisdiction to impose the sales tax.

132. Then there are cases where the Executive action is without authority of law. One
such case is Bombay Dyeing Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. The State of Bombay (1958)
S.C.R. 1122 which was not a petition under Article 32 but an appeal against can order
under Article 226. In that case under the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, which
authorised the constituting of a fund for financing labour welfare, notices were served
upon the appellant company to remit the fines and unpaid accumulations in its
custody to the Welfare Commissioner. The appellant company questioned in a petition
under Article 226 the validity of that Act as a contravention of Article 31(2). The High
Court held that Act intra vires and dismissed the petition. On appeal against that
judgment this Court held that the unpaid accumulations of wages and fines were the
property of the Company and any direction for the payment of those sums was a
contravention of Article 31(2) and therefore invalid. It was also held that assuming
that the money was not property within the meaning of Article 31(2) and Article
19(1)(f) applied that Article would also be of no help to the Welfare Commissioner
because it could not be supported under Article 19(5) of the Constitution. Moreover
this was not a case of a determination by a quasi-judicial tribunal but was a case of
executive action without authority of law.

133. In Bidi Supply Co. v. The Union of India ((1956) S.C.R. 257, 271, 277.) an order
passed by Central Board of Revenue transferring the assessment records and
proceedings of the petitioner from Calcutta to Ranchi under section 5(7A) of the
Income tax Act was challenging under Article 32 as an infringement of the
fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 31 of the
Constitution. The impugned order by the Central Board of Revenue was made acting
in its executive capacity and this Court, without deciding the question whether the
order could be supported on the ground of reasonable classification held that the order
expressed in general terms without any reference to any particular case and without
any limitation as to time was not contemplated or sanctioned by sub-section 7(A) of
section 5 and therefore the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of
sub-sections 1 and 2 of section 64 of Indian Income tax Act. The question decided
therefore was that the Central Board of Revenue acting under section 5(7A) was not
empowered to pass an "omnibus wholesale order of transfer". It was not a quasi-
judicial order of an administrative tribunal acting within its jurisdiction but an
unauthorised executive order of an administrative tribunal acting in its administrative
capacity. Section 5(7A) was subsequently 'amended and in a somewhat similar case
Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India MANU/SC/0020/1956 : [1957]1SCR233 it was
held that the amended section 5(7A) was a measure of administrative convenience
and was constitutional and an order passed thereunder was equally constitutional.

134. In Thakur Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0013/1955 :

[1955]2SCR303 the State of Rajasthan passed orders assuming certain jagirs under
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. In the case of one of the jagirs
it was held by this Court that the notification, by which the resumption was made, was
bad as regards properties comprised in that petition because the properties were not
within the impugned Act, and being dedicated for religious purposes was exempt
under section 20 of the Act. This again was not a case of any quasi-judicial decision
but it was a notification issued by the executive Government in regard to properties
not within the Act which was challenged in that case.

135. A case strongly relied upon by the petitioner was M/s. Mohanalal Hargovind Das,
Jabalpur v. The State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0082/1955 : [1955]2SCR509 .
The petitioners there were called upon to file their returns of the total purchase of
tobacco made by them out of Madhya Pradesh with a view to assess and levy
purchase tax. The return was filed under protest and the Sales tax Authorities, as it
was required under the law, called upon the petitioners to deposit the purchase tax.
No quasi-judicial determination was made, no decision was given after hearing the
taxpayer, but deposit was asked to be made as that was a requirement of the statute.
In a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus restraining
the State of Madhya Pradesh from enforcing Madhya Pradesh Act against the
petitioners it was contended that the transactions were in the course of inter-State
trade. The nature of the transaction was that finished tobacco which was supplied to
the petitioners by the suppliers moved from the State of Bombay to the State of
Madhya Pradesh and the transactions which were sought to be taxed were therefore in
the course of inter-State trade and were not liable to tax by the State. That was not a
case of misconstruction of any statue by any quasi-judicial authority but that was a
case in which the very transaction was outside the taxing powers of the State and any
action taken by the taxing authorities was one without authority of law. The statue did
not give jurisdiction to the Authority to decide an inter-State transaction was an intra-
State sale. If it had so done the statute would have been unconstitutional under
Article 286(1)(a).

136. In Madanlal Arora v. The Excise Taxation Officer Amritsar MANU/SC/0307/1961

: [1962]1SCR823 , notices were issued to the assessee enquiring him to attend
with the documents and other evidence in support of his returns. In the last of these
notices it was stated that on failure to produce the documents and evidence the case
will be decided "on best judgment assessment basis". The petitioner did not comply
with the notices but filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the
right of the authority to make a "best judgment assessment" on the ground that at
the date of the last notice the sales tax authority had no right to proceed to make any
"best judgment assessment" as the three years within which alone such assessment
could be made had expired. This contention was held to be well founded. Indeed the
respondent conceded that he could not contend to the contrary. This therefore was a
case in which the taxing authority had no jurisdiction to take proceeding for
assessment of tax because of the expiry of three years which had to be counted from
the end of the each quarter in respect of which the return had been filed. The question
was one of lack jurisdiction and it made no difference that the Sales tax Officer had
misconstrued the provision.

137. Y. Mahaboob Sheriff v. Mysore State Transport Authority MANU/SC/0189/1959

: [1960]2SCR146 , was a case under the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioners'
application for the renewal of the permits were granted by the Regional Transport
Authority empowered to grant renewal for the period of one year. A petitioner
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was filed against the order of renewal after
the usual appeals had been taken and proved unsuccessful and the petition was
summarily dismissed. Thereafter a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was
filed in this Court and the question for determination was whether on a proper
construction of the provision of section 58(1)(a) and (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act the
period of renewal like in the case of original permit had to be not less than three and
not more than five years. It was held that it had to be for that period as provided in
sub-section (1)(a) of section 58 read with sub-section 2 of that section. This, it was
submitted, was an authority for the proposition that where a provision is misconstrued
by an authority having jurisdiction to construe a section a petition under Article 32 is
competent In the first place the question as to whether Article 32 was applicable was
not raised an was therefore not decided. Secondly what was held was that if the
authority renewed a permit the renewal had to be for a particular period as specified
in section 58 and could not be for a lesser period. The question was therefore of
jurisdiction.

138. In universal Imports Agency v. The Chief Controller of Imports and

Exports MANU/SC/0010/1960 : [1961]1SCR305 , the petitioners, in Pondicherry,
entered before its merger with India, into firm contracts with foreign sellers and the
goods agreed to be imported were shipped before or after the merger. The goods
were confiscated by the Controller of Customs on the ground that they were imported
without a license but as an option in lieu of confiscation the goods were released on
payment of a fine. On a petition under Article 32 it was held by a majority that under
paragraph 6 of the French Establishments (Application of Laws) Order 1954, the
transactions in question fell within the words "things done" in the saving clause and
were not liable to tax. This saving clause was contained in the Order applying Indian
laws in place of the French laws. The construction was not of the taxing statute but of
certain Orders by which the taxing statute had been applied to Pondicherry. These
Orders the Taxing Officer had no power to construe and there was no law to support
the order of the Collector. In any case this is an instance of want of jurisdiction to tax
transactions which the law excludes from the taxing powers of the authority levying
the tax. There again the question of the applicability of Article 32 to quasi-judicial
determination was not raised.

139. There is one other class of cases of which K. T. Moopil Nair's

case MANU/SC/0042/1960 : [1961]3SCR77 is an example. That was a case where
the tax was of a confiscatory nature and the procedure was contrary to rules of
natural justice. The imposition of land tax at a flat rate of Rs. 2 per acre imposed
under the provisions of Travancore Cochin Land Tax Act (Act 15 of 1955) as amended
by Travancore Cochin Land Tax Act (Act 10 of 1957) was held to be violative of
Articles 14 and 19(1)(f). A taxing statute it was held by a majority of the Court, was
not immune from attack on the ground that if infringes the equality clause under
Article 14, and the tax was also held to be violative of Article 19(1)(f), because it was
silent as to the machinery and procedure to be followed in making the assessment
leaving to the executive to evolve the requisite machinery and procedure thus treating
the whole thing as purely administrative in character and ignoring that the
assessment on a person or property is quasi-judicial in character. It was also held that
a tax of Rs. 2 was unreasonable as it was confiscatory in effect. The main ground on
which the law was held to be an infringement of Article 19(1)(f) was the procedure or
the want of procedure for imposing taxes and therefore its being opposed to rules of
natural justice. Here again the vice was in the Act and not in any misinterpretation of
it. No doubt the amount of the tax imposed was also held to be unreasonable because
it was in effect confiscatory but this is not a matter which is necessary in the present
case to go into as the question whether Article 19(1) applies to taxing laws or not was
not debated by the parties before us. On the main contention as to the applicability of
Article 32 these were the submissions of the learned Attorney-General.

140. A review of these cases shows that (1) the law which is ultra vires either because
of the legislative incompetence or its contravention of some constitutional inhibition is
a non-existing law and any action taken thereunder, quasi-judicial or otherwise, would
be a contravention of Article 19(1)(f) and (g) and the result will be no different if it is
a colourable piece of legislation; (2) where the proceedings are repugnant to the rules
of natural justice the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) are infringed; (3)
the consequence is the same where assessment is made by an authority which has no
jurisdiction to impose the tax and (4) if an administrative tribunal acting quasi-
judicially misconstrues a provision which it has jurisdiction to construe and therefore
imposes a tax infringement according of Article 19(1)(g) would result according to
Kailash Nath's case MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 but there is no such
infringement according to cases which the learned Additional Solicitor General relied
upon and which have been discussed above. The reason why the decision in the latter
cases is correct and the decision in Kailash Nath's case MANU/SC/0136/1957 :
AIR1957SC790 is not have already been given and it is unnecessary to repeat them.

141. Mr. Palkhivala who intervened in C.M.P. 1496/61 in support of the petition in the
main argued the question whether a misconstruction of a taxing statute can involve
the violation of a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g). His contention was that an
erroneous construction which result in transgression of constitutional limits would
violate Article (19)(1)(g) and that the difference between jurisdictional and non-
jurisdictional error was immaterial and that a misconstruction of a statute can violate
the right to trade and he relied upon M/s. Mohanlal Hargovind Das v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0082/1955 : [1955]2SCR509 which was a case of inter-
State sale and which has already been discussed. He also relied upon the decision in
R. S. Ram Jawaya Kapur v. The State of Punjab MANU/SC/0011/1955 :
[1955]2SCR225 . In that case it was held that the acts of the Executive even if
deemed to be sanctioned by the legislature can be declared void if they infringe any of
the fundamental rights but no question of judicial determination by quasi-judicial
tribunal arose there. Similarly in M/s. Ram Narain Sons Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of
Sales tax [1955] 2 S.C.R. 498 the question raised was of the meaning and scope of
the proviso to Article 286(2) and therefore the question was one of inter-State sales
sales which no statute could authorise to turn into intra-State sale by a judicial
decision.

142. It was argued before us that the decision of a tribunal acting quasi-judicially
operates as res judicata and further that the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad
when it was moved by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution against the
order of assessment passed on the ground of misconstruction of the notification of
December 14, 1957 also operates as res judicata as the appeal against that order has
been withdrawn. The High Court rejected the petition under Article 227 firstly on the
ground that there was an alternative remedy of getting the error corrected by way of
appeal and secondly the High Court said :-

"We have, however, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits also,
but we are not satisfied that the interpretation put upon this notification by the
Sales Tax Officer contains any obvious error in it. The circumstances make the
interpretation advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner unlikely. It is
admitted that even hand-made biris have been subject to Sales tax since long
before the date of the issue of the above notification. The object of passing the
Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Central Act, No. 58 of
1957 was to levy an additional excise duty on certain important articles and with
the concurrence of the State Legislature to abolish Sales tax on those articles.
According to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner during the
period 14th December, 1957 to June 30, 1958, the petitioner was liable neither
to payment of excise duty nor to payment of sales tax. We do not know why
there should have been such an exemption. The language of the notification
might well be read as meaning that the notification is to apply only to those
goods on which an additional Central excise duty had been levied and paid."
143. It is unnecessary to decide this question in this case.

144. It was next argued that the Sales tax Authorities are all officers of the State
charged with the function of levy and collection of taxes which is essentially
administrative and that when they act as quasi-judicial tribunals that function is only
incidental to the discharge of their administrative function and therefore the
assessment order of December 20, 1958, was an executive order and falls within
Article 19(1)(g). Reference was made to Bidi Supply Co., v. The union of India (1956)
S.C.R. 257 (at pp. 271 and 277), a case under section 5(7-A) of the Income tax Act.
At page 271 the definition of the word "State" is set out and at p. 277 Das, C.J., said
that the "State" includes its Income tax Department. There is no dispute that the
Sales tax Department is a department of the State and is included within the word
"State" but the question is what is the nature and quality of the determination made
by a Sales Tax Officer when he is performing judicial or quasi-judicial function. The
argument of the learned Attorney General comes to this that even though in the
performance of quasi-judicial functions that Taxing Officer may have many of the
trappings of a court still he is not a court and therefore the decision of the taxing
authority in the present case was not entitled to the protection which an erroneous
decision of a proper court has : Chaparala Krishna Brahman v. Gururu
Govardhaiah MANU/TN/0358/1954 : [1954]25ITR407(Mad) where it was held that
the Income tax Officer is not a court within section 195 of the Criminal Procedure
Code was cited in support of the contention that the taxing authority in the present
case was not a court. So also Sell Co. of Australia Ltd. v. The Federal Commissioner of
Taxation (1931) A.C. 275, where it was held that a Board of Revenue created by the
Income tax Assessment Act to review the decision of Commissioner of Income tax is
not a court exercising the judicial powers of the Commonwealth. At page 298 Lord
Sankey. L.C., observed :

"An administrative tribunal may act judicially, but still remain an administrative
tribunal as distinguished from a Court, strictly so called. Mere externals do not
make a direction to an administrative officer by an ad hoc tribunal an exercise
by a court of judicial power".
145. It was also observed in that case that there are tribunals with many of the
trappings of a court, which nevertheless are not courts in the strict sense exercising
judicial power. There is no gainsaying that Sales tax Officer is not a court even though
he may have many of the trappings of a court including the power to summon
witnesses, receive evidence on oath and making judicial determinations. In the strict
sense of the term he is not a court exercising judicial power; but the question for
decision in the present case is not whether he is a Court or not but whether the
determination made by him in regard to the exemption available to the petitioners on
the sale of biris was a decision made by a quasi-judicial authority in the exercise of its
statutory powers and within its jurisdiction and therefore not an administrative act.

146. The characteristic of an administrative tribunal is that it has no ascertainable

standards. It only follows policy and expediency which being subjective considerations
are what a tribunal makes them. An administrative tribunal and acting as an
administrative tribunal and acting as a judicial tribunal may be distinguished thus :

"Ordinarily 'administrative' tribunals need not act on legal evidence at all, but
only on such considerations as they see fit. A statute requiring such evidence to
be received prevents a tribunal's making up its mind until it has given this
evidence a chance to weigh with it. But it is a fallacy to assume that the tribunal
is thereby limited to acting on that evidence. It is an 'administrative' tribunal it
must till be governed by policy and expediency until it has heard the evidence,
but the evidence need not influence its policy any further than it sees fit. A
contrary view would involve the decision's being dictated by the evidence, not by
policy and expediency; but if certain evidence with it a right to a particular
decision, that decision would be a decision on legal rights; so the tribunal would
be administering 'justice' and would be exercising judicial not
'administrative'". 1933) L.Q.R. 424.
147. There are decisions of this court in which certain tribunals have been held judicial
bodies; Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. Employees of the Bharat Bank
Ltd. MANU/SC/0030/1950 : (1950)NULLLLJ921SC Province of Bombay v. Kusaldas
S. Advani MANU/SC/0034/1950 : [1950]1SCR621 where Das, J., (as he then was)
observed at p. 725 :

"that if a statutory authority has power to do any act which will prejudicially
affect the subject then, although there are not two parties apart from the
authority and the contest between the authority proposing to do the act and the
subject opposing it, the final determination of the authority will yet be a quasi-
judicial act provided the authority is required by the statute to act judicially".
148. See also Nagendra Nath Bora v. The Commissioner of Hills Division & Appeals,
Assam MANU/SC/0101/1958 : [1958]1SCR1240 .

149. It is unnecessary again to examine in detail the provisions of the Act to

determine the character of the Sales tax Officer when he takes assessment
proceedings for they have already been referred to. They are all characteristics of
judicial or quasi-judicial process and would clothe the Sales tax Officer making
assessment orders with judicial or quasi-judicial character. Indeed, because the order
of assessment was judicial or quasi-judicial the petitioner filed in the High Court a
petition for certiorari and against that order an appeal under Article 136 as also a
petition for certiorari under Article 32. Taking the nature of the determination by the
Sales tax Officer in the instant case it cannot be said that he is purely an
administrative authority or the order passed by him is an executive order; on the
contrary when he is determining the amount of tax payable by a dealer, he is acting in
a quasi-judicial capacity.

150. Mr. Chari, intervening on behalf of the State of Bihar, submitted that in
Article 12 the judicial branch of the State was not included in the definition of the
word "State" and the words "other bodies" there did not comprise a tribunal having
jurisdiction to decide judicially and its decisions could not be challenged by way of a
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. In view of my decision that a quasi-
judicial order of the Sales tax Officer is not challengeable by proceedings under
Article 32, I do not think it necessary to decide the wider question whether the
definition of the word "State" as given in Article 12 comprises the judicial department
of the State or not.

151. In view of the decision as to the correctness of the decision in Kailash Nath's
case MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 , it is not necessary in this case to go
into the correctness or otherwise of the order of the Sales tax Officer. The petition
under Article 32 therefore fails and is dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs.

(C.M.P. No. 1349 of 1961)

J.L. Kapur, J.

152. Messrs. Mohanlal Hargovind Das, the assessee firm had filed an appeal on a
certificate of the Allahabad High Court against the order of the Court dismissing their
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the imposition of the sales
tax, on the ground that another remedy was available. The appeal against that order
was dismissed by this Court for non-prosecution on February 20, 1961. Against that
order of dismissal the assessee firm has filed an application for restoration on the
ground that it had been advised that in view of the rule having been issued under
Article 32 of the Constitution wherein the contentions were the same as raised in the
appeal against the order under Article 226 it was unnecessary to prosecute the
appeal. It also prayed for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration.

153. No sufficient cause has been made out for allowing the application for
restoration. The assessee firm deliberately allowed the appeal, which was pending in
this Court, to be dismissed for non-prosecution and after deliberately taking that step
it cannot be allowed to get the dismissal set aside on the ground of wrong advice. The
application for restoration is therefore dismissed with costs.

A.K. Sarkar, J.

154. I have had the advantage of reading the judgments just delivered by my
brothers Das and Kapur and I am in agreement with them.

K. Subba Rao, J.

155. I have carefully gone through the judgment prepared by my learned brother
Kapur, J. I am unable to agree. The facts have been fully stated in his judgment and it
is therefore not necessary to cover the ground over again.

156. This larger Bench has been constituted to canvass the correctness of the decision
in Kailash Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 .
After hearing the elaborate arguments of learned counsel, I am convinced that no
case has been made out to take a different view.

157. Learned Attorney General seeks to sustain the correctness of the said decision.
He broadly contends that this Court is the constitutional protector of the fundamental
rights enshrined in the Constitution, that every person whose fundamental right is
infringed has a guaranteed right to approach this Court for its enforcement, and that it
is not permissible to whittle down that jurisdiction with the aid of doctrines evolved by
courts for other purposes. He argues that in the present case an executive authority
functioning under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (Act XV of 1948), hereinafter
called the Act, made a clearly erroneous order imposing tax on exempted goods,
namely bidis, and that it is a clear infringement of the fundamental right of the
petitioner to carry on business in bidis. Whenever such a right is infringed, the
argument proceeds, by a State action - here we are only concerned with State action -
it is the duty of this Court to give the appropriate relief and not to refuse to do so on
any extraneous considerations.
158. The Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State does not admit this legal
position. He says that the Act is a reasonable restriction on the petitioner's right to
carry on business in bidis, that thereunder a Sales-Tax Officer has jurisdiction to
decide, rightly or wrongly, whether bidis are exempted from sales-tax, and that,
therefore, his order made with jurisdiction cannot possibly infringe the fundamental
rights of the petitioner.

159. Mr. Chari, who appears for the intervener, while supporting the argument of
learned Solicitor General emphasizes the point that the fundamental rights enshrined
in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution in only against State action, that the definition
of "State" in Article 12 thereof excludes and authorities exercising judicial power, and
that sales-tax authority, in making the assessment in exercising judicial power, and
that, therefore, no writ can be issued by this Court against the said authority.

160. Before attempting to answer the questions raised, it is relevant and convenient
to ascertain precisely the position of the fundamental rights under the Constitution
and the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court in enforcing those rights.

161. Fundamental rights are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution as the
paramount right of the people. Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making any law
which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by the said Part and declares that
any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention,
be void. These right may be broadly stated to relate to (i) right to equality -
Articles 14 to 18, (ii) right to freedom - Articles 19 to 22, (iii) right against
exploitation - Articles 23 and 24, (iv) right to freedom of religion - Articles 25 and 28,
(v) cultural and educational rights - Articles 29 and 30, (vi) right to property -
Articles 31 and 31A, and (vii) right to constitutional remedies - Articles 32 to 35.
These are the inalienable rights of the people of this country - some of them of non-
citizens also - believed to be necessary for the development of human personality;
they are essential for working out one's way of life. In theory these rights are
reserved to the people after the delegation of the other rights by them to the
institutions of Government created by the Constitution, which expresses their will :
see observations of Patanjali Sastri, J., as he then was, in A. K. Gopalan v. State of
Madras MANU/SC/0012/1950 : 1950CriLJ1383 . In State of Madras v. Shrimati
Champakam Dorairajan MANU/SC/0007/1951 : [1951]2SCR525 the same idea was
more forcibly restated thus :

"The chapter of Fundamental Rights is sacrosanct and not liable to abridged by

any legislative or Executive Act or order, except to the extent provided in the
appropriate article in Part III. The directive principles of State Policy have to
conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights."
162. In the context of fundamental right, an important principle should be borne in
mind, namely, that the English idea of legislative supremacy is foreign to our
Constitution. As this Court pointed out in A. K. Gopalan's case MANU/SC/0012/1950
: 1950CriLJ1383 the Constitution has not accepted the English doctrine of absolute
supremacy of Parliament in matters of legislation. therefore, every institution, be it
the Executive, the Legislature of the Judiciary, can only function in exercise of the
powers conferred on it that is, the Constitution is the paramount law. As the
Constitution declares the fundamental rights and also prescribes the restrictions that
can be imposed thereon, no institutions can overstep the limits, directly or indirectly,
by encroaching upon the said rights.

163. But a mere declaration of the fundamental rights would not be enough, and it
was necessary to evolve a machinery to enforce them. So our Constitution, entrusted
the duty of enforcing them to the Supreme Court, the highest judicial authority in the
country. This Court has no more important function than to preserve the inviolable
fundamental rights of the people; for, the fathers of the Constitution, in their fullest
confidence, have entrusted them to the care of this Court and given to it all the
institutional conditions necessary to exercise its jurisdiction in that regard without fear
of favour. The task is delicate and sometimes difficult; but this Court has to
discharged it to the best of its ability and not to abdicate it on the fallacious ground of
inability or inconvenience. It must be borne in mind that our Constitution in effect
promises to usher in a welfare State for our country; and in such a state the
Legislature has necessarily to create innumerable administrative tribunals, and entrust
them with multifarious functions. They will have powers to interfere with every aspect
of human activity. If their existence is necessary for the progress of our country, the
abuse of power by them may bring about an authoritarian or totalitarian state. The
existence of the aforesaid power in this Court and the exercise of the same effectively
when the occasion arise is a necessary safeguard against the abuse of the power by
the administrative tribunals.

164. The scope of the power of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution has
been expounded by this Court on many occasions. The decisions not only laid down
the amplitude of the power but also the mode of exercising that power to meet the
different situations that might present themselves to this Court. In Romesh Thappar v.
State of Madras MANU/SC/0006/1950 : 1950CriLJ1514 this Court declared that
under the Constitution the Supreme Court constituted as the protector guarantor of
fundamental rights, and it cannot, consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it,
refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringement of such rights,
although such applications are made to the Court in the first instance without resort to
a High Court having concurrent jurisdiction in the matter. This Court again in Rashid
Ahmad v. The Municipal Board, Kairana MANU/SC/0005/1950 : [1950]1SCR566
pointed out that the powers given to this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution are
much wider and are not confined to issuing prerogative writs only. This Court further
elucidated the scope of the jurisdiction in T. C. Basappa v. T.
Nagappa MANU/SC/0098/1954 : [1955]1SCR250 , wherein Mukherjee, J., speaking
for the Court defined the scope of the power thus :

"In view of the express provisions in our Constitution we need not now look back
to the early history or the procedural technicalities of these writs in English law,
nor feel oppressed by any difference or change of opinion expressed in particular
cases by English Judges."
165. This Court again elaborated the scope of its power under that Article in
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni Moopil Nayar v. The State of
Madras MANU/SC/0018/1959 : (1959) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 316. Das, C.J., after
reviewing the earlier case law on the subject observed :

"Further, even if the existence of other adequate legal remedy may be taken into
consideration by the High Court in deciding whether it should issue any of the
prerogative writs on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, as to
which we say nothing now - this Court cannot, on a similar ground, decline to
entertain a petition under Article 32, for the right to move this Court by
appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III
of the Constitution is itself a guaranteed right."
166. In that case it was pressed upon this Court to hold that in exercise of its power
under Article 32 of the Constitution, this Court could not embark upon an enquiry into
disputed questions of fact, and various inconveniences were pointed out if it was
otherwise. After considering the cases cited in support of that contention, this Court
came to the conclusion that it would fail in its duty as the custodian and protector of
fundamental rights if it was to decline to entertain a petition under Article 32 simply
because it involved the determination of disputed questions of fact. When it was
pointed out that if that view was adopted, it might not be possible for this Court to
decide questions of fact on affidavits, the learned Chief Justice observed :

"As we have already said, it is possible very often to decide questions of fact on
affidavits. If the petitions and the affidavits in support thereof are not convincing
and the court is not satisfied that the petitioner has established his fundamental
right or any breach thereof, the court may dismiss the petition on the ground
that the petitioner has not discharged the onus that lay on him. The court may,
in some appropriate cases, be inclined to give an opportunity to the parties to
establish their respective cases filing further affidavits or by issuing a
commission or even by setting the application down for trial on evidence, as has
often been done on the original sides of the High Courts of Bombay and
Calcutta, or by adopting some other appropriate procedure. Such occasions will
be rare indeed and such rare cases should not, in our opinion, be regarded as a
cogent reason for refusing to entertain the petition under Article 32 on the
ground that it involves disputed questions of fact."
167. Finally, this Court also held that in appropriate case it had the power, in its
discretion, to frame writs or orders suitable to the exigencies created by enactments
and that where the occasion so required to make even a declaratory order with
consequential relief. In short, this decision recognized the comprehensive jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and gave it full effect without putting
any artificial limitations thereon. But in Daryao v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0012/1961
: [1962]1SCR574 , this Court applied the doctrine of res judicata and held that the
petitioners in that case had no fundamental right, as their right on merits was defined
by the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and that as no
appeal was filed therefrom, it has become final. But the learned Judges carefully
circumscribed the limits of the doctrine in its application to a petition under
Article 32. Gajendragadkar, J., speaking for the Court observed :

"If the petition filed in the High Court under Article 226 is dismissed not on the
merits but because of the laches of the party applying for the writ or because it
is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, then the
dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition
under Article 32 except in cases where and if the facts thus found by the High
Court may themselves be relevant even under Article 32. If a writ petition is
dismissed in limine and an order is pronounced in that behalf, whether or not the
dismissal would constitute a bar would depend upon the nature of the order. If
the order is on the merits it would be a bar; if the order shows that the dismissal
was for the reason that the petitioner was guilty of laches or that he had an
alternative remedy it would not be a bar, except in cases which we have already
indicated. If the petition is dismissed in limine without passing a speaking order
then such dismissed cannot be treated as creating a bar or res judicata. It is
true that, prima facie, dismissal in limine even without passing a speaking order
in that behalf may strongly suggest that the Court took the view that there was
no substance in the petition at all; but in the absence of a speaking order it
would not be easy to decide what factors weighed in the mind of the Court and
that makes it difficult and unsafe to hold that such a summary dismissal is a
dismissal on merits and as such constitutes a bar of res judicata against a
similar petition filed under Article 32. If the petition is dismissed as withdrawn it
cannot be a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32, because in such a
case there has been no decision on the merits by the Court."
168. Though this decision applies the doctrine of res judicata, the aforesaid
observations indicate the anxiety of the Court to confine it within the specified limits
and to prevent any attempt to overstep the said limits. Shortly stated it is settled law
that Article 32 confers a wide jurisdiction on this Court to enforce the fundamental
right, that the right to enforce a fundamental right is itself a fundamental right, and
that it is the duty of this Court to entertain an application and to decide it on merits
whenever a party approaches it to decide whether he has a fundamental right or if so
whether it has been infringed irrespective of the fact whether the question raised
involves a question of law or depends upon questions of fact. The doctrine of res
judicata applied by this Court does not detract from the amplitude of the jurisdiction,
but only negatives the right of a petitioner on the ground that a competent court has
given a final decision against him in respect of the right claimed.

169. In this case a further attempt is made on behalf of the State to restrict the scope
of the Court's jurisdiction. Uninfluenced by judicial decisions, let us approach the
question on principle. An illustration arising on the facts of the present case will
highlight the point to be decided. A citizen of India is doing business in bidis. He has
fundamental right to carry on that business. The State Legislature enacts the Sales
Tax Act imposing a tax on the turnover and on the sales of various goods, but gives
certain exemptions. It expressly declares that no tax shall be levied on the exempted
goods. The said law is a reasonable restriction on the petitioner's fundamental right to
carry on the business in bidis. Now on a true construction of the relevant provisions of
the Act, no tax is leviable on bids. But on a wrong construction of the relevant
provisions of the Act, the Sales-tax Officer imposes a tax on the turnover of the
petitioner relating to the said bidis. He files successive statutory appeals to the
hierarchy of tribunals but without success. The result is that he is asked to pay tax in
respect of the business of bidies exempted under the Act. The imposition of the said
illegal tax on the turnover of bidis is certainly an infringement of his fundamental
right. He comes to this Court and prays that his fundamental right may be enforced
against the Sales-tax Officer. The Officer says, "It may be true that my order is
wrong; it may also be that the Supreme Court may hold that my construction of the
section as accepted by the highest tribunal is perverse; still, as under the Act I have
got the power to decide rightly or wrongly, my order though illegal operates as a
reasonable restriction on the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on business." This
argument, in my view, if accepted, would in effect make the wrong order of the Sales-
tax Officer binding on the Supreme Court, or to state it differently, a fundamental
right can be defeated by a wrong order of an executive officer, and this Court would
become a helpless spectator abdicating its functions in favour of the subordinate
officer in the Sales-tax Department. The Constitution says in effect that neither the
Parliament nor the Executive can infringe the fundamental rights of the citizens, and if
they do, the person affected has a guaranteed right to approach this Court, and this
Court has a duty to enforce it; but the Executive authority says, "I have a right to
decide wrongly and, therefore the Supreme Court cannot enforce the fundamental
right". There is nothing in the Constitution which permits such an extraordinary
position. It cannot be a correct interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution if it
enables any authority to subvert the paramount power conferred on the Supreme
Court.

170. It is conceded that if the law is invalid, or if the officer acts with inherent want of
jurisdiction, the petitioner's fundamental right can be enforced. It is said that if a valid
law confers jurisdiction on the officer to decide rightly or wrongly, the petitioner has
no fundamental right. What is the basis for this principle ? None is discernible in the
provisions of the Constitution. There is no provision which enables the Legislature to
make an order of an executive authority final so as to deprive the Supreme Court of
its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.
171. But the finality of the order is sought to be sustained on the principle of res
judicata. It is argued that the Sales-tax Tribunals are judicial tribunals in the sense
they are courts, and, therefore their final decisions would operate as res judicata on
the principle enunciated by this Court in Daryao's case MANU/SC/0012/1961 :
[1962]1SCR574 . Can it be said that Sales-tax authorities under the Act are judicial
tribunals in the sense they are courts ? In a Welfare State the Governments is called
upon to discharge multifarious duties affecting every aspect of human activity. This
extension of the governmental activity necessitated the entrusting of many executive
authorities with power to decide rights of parties. They are really instrumentalities of
the executive designed to function in the discharge of their duties adopting, as far as
possible, the principles of judicial procedure. Nonetheless, they are only executive
bodies. They may have the trappings of a court, but the officers manning the same
have neither the training nor the institutional conditions of a judicial officer. Every Act
designed to further the social and economic progress of our country or to raise taxes,
constituted some tribunal for deciding disputes arising thereunder, such as income-tax
authorities, Sales-tax authorities, town planning authorities, regional transport
authorities, etc. A scrutiny of the provisions of the U.P. Sales-tax Act with which we
are now concerned, shows that the authorities constituted thereunder are only such
administrative tribunals as mentioned above. The preamble to the Act shows that it
was enacted to provide for the levy of tax on the sale of goods in Uttar-Pradesh. The
Act imposes a tax on the turnover of sales of certain commodities and provides a
machinery for the levy, assessment and collection of the said tax. Under the Act the
State Government is authorized to appoint certain assessing authorities. It provides
for an appeal against the order of the assessing authority and for a revision in some
cases and a reference to the High Courts in others. The State Government is also
authorized to appoint a hierarchy of authorities or tribunals for deciding the appeals or
revisions. The assessing authorities are admittedly the officer of the Sales-tax
Department and there is nothing in the Act to indicate that either the assessing
authority or the appellate authority need possess any legal qualification. It is true that
legal qualification is prescribed for the revising authority, but that does not make him
a court or make the inferior tribunals courts. The said authorities have to follow
certain principles of natural justice, but that does not make them courts. The scheme
of the Act clearly shows that the sales-tax authorities appointed under the Act,
following the principles of natural justice, ascertain the turnover of an assessee and
impose the tax. The hierarchy of tribunals are intended to safeguard the interest of
the assessees as well as the State by correcting wrong orders. The fact that, following
the analogy of the Income-tax Act, at the instance of the party aggrieved a reference
can be made by the reviewing authority to the High Court on a question of law shows
only that the help of the High Court can be requisitioned only to elucidate questions of
law, but the High Court has no power to make final orders, but on receipt of the
judgments of the High Court, the revising authority shall make an order in conformity
with such judgment.

172. Now let us consider the decisions cited at the Bar which would throw some light
on the nature of such tribunals. In considering whether the Board of review created by
section 41 of the Federal Income-Tax Assessment Act, 1922-25 was a judicial
authority, the Judicial Committee in Shell Company of Australia Limited v. Federal
Commission of Taxation (1930) A.C. 275 observed.

"The authorities are clear to show that there are tribunals with many of the
trappings of a Court which, nevertheless, are not Courts in the strict sense of
exercising judicial power."
173. The Judicial Committee further observed :

"An administrative tribunal may act judicially, but still remain an administrative
tribunal as distinguished from a Court, strictly so-called. Mere externals do not
make a direction to an administrative officer by and ad hoc tribunal an exercise
by a Court of judicial power."
174. The Allahabad High Court in Messrs Kamlapat Moti Lal v. Commissioner of
Income Tax, U.P. MANU/UP/0096/1950 : [1950]18ITR812(All) held that the
Income-tax authorities are not courts and, therefore, their decisions cannot operate as
res judicata. Malik, C.J., observed :

"The income-tax authorities cannot be treated as Courts deciding a

disputed point, except for the purposes mentioned in section 37, and
further there is no other party before them and there are no pleadings.
As has been said by Lord Herschell in Boulter v. Kent Justices (1897)
A.C. 556."

"There is no truth, no lis, no controversy inter parties, and no decision

in favour of one of them and against the other, unless, indeed, the
entire public are regarded as the other party".

175. The Income-tax authorities are mainly concerned with finding out the assessable
income for the year and not with deciding any question of tile. But to arrive at that
income they have at times to decide certain general questions which might affect the
determination of the assessable income not only in the year in question but also in
subsequent years.....

176. An assessment is inherently of a passing nature and it cannot provide an

estoppel by res judicata in later years by reason of a matter being taken in to account
or not being taken into account by the Income-tax Officer in an earlier year of
assessment."

177. An instructive discussion on the question whether an Income-tax Officer is a

court within the meaning of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is found in
Krishna Brahman v. Goverdhanaiah MANU/TN/0358/1954 : [1954]25ITR407(Mad) ,
where Balakrishna Ayyar, J., after considering the case law on the subject and the
provisions of the Income-tax Act, held that an Income-tax officer was not a "court".
The learned Judge did not think that the adaptation of norms of judicial procedure or
the fact that appeals were provided for, was sufficient to make them courts. The
learned Judge observed :

"When exercising his powers under Chapter IV of the Act, it seems to me, that
the Income-tax Officer is acting in a purely administrative capacity. It is his duty
to ascertain what the income of the particular individual is and what amount of
tax he should be required to pay. There is therefore no 'lis' whatever before
him."
178. The same reasoning would equally apply to sales-tax authorities. This Court in
Bidi Supply Co. v. The Union of India , speaking through Das, C.J., set aside the order
of an Income-tax Officer and in doing so observed :

"Here, 'the State' which includes its Income-tax Department has by an illegal
order denied to the petitioner, as compared with other Bidi merchants who are
similarly situate, equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and
the petitioner can legitimately complain of an infraction of his fundamental right
under article 14 of the Constitution."
179. Though this cannot be called a direct decision on the question raised in the
present case, it indicates that this Court treated the Income-tax Officer as a
department of the executive branch of the Government. This Court again in Gullapalli
Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0017/1958 : [1959] Supp. 1
S.C.R. 319 pointed out the distinction between a quasi-judicial act of an Executive
authority and the judicial act of a court thus :

"The concept of a quasi-judicial act implies that the act is not wholly judicial; it
describes only a duty cast on the executive body or authority to conform to
norms of judicial procedure in performing some acts in exercise of its executive
powers."
180. It is, therefore, clear that administrative tribunal cannot be equated with courts.
They are designed to discharge functions in the exercise of the executive power of the
State, and the mere fact that the relevant statutes, with a view of safeguard the
interest of the people, direct them to dispose of matters coming before them following
the principle of natural justice and by adopting the same well known trappings of
judicial procedure, does not make them any the less the executive organs of the
State. It is not possible to apply the principle of res judicata to the orders of such
tribunals, for obviously section 11 of the Code of civil Procedure dose not apply to
such orders, and the general principle of res judicata de'hors that provision has never
been applied to such orders. It is true that some statutes expressly or by necessary
implication oust the jurisdiction of civil Courts in respect of Certain matters but such
exclusion can-not affect the extraordinary powers of superior courts conferred under
Articles 226, 227 and 32 of the Constitution.

181. There is a simpler answer to the plea of res judicata. In the present case the
Sales tax authorities decided the case against the petitioners. The petitioners are
seeking the help of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitute to enforce their
fundamental rights on the ground that he said order infringes their rights. To put it
differently, the petitioners by this application question the orders of the Sales-tax
authority. How it is possible to contend that the order which is now sought to be
quashed can operate as res judicata precluding this Court from questioning its
correctness ? The principle underlying the doctrine of res judicata is that no one shall
be vexed twice on the same matter. This implies that there should be two
proceedings, and that in a former proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction, an
issue has been finally decided inter parties and therefore the same cannot be
reagitated in a subsequent proceeding. On the said principle the impugned order itself
cannot obviously be relied upon to sustain the plea of res-judicata.

182. The argument ab-inconvenienti does not appeal to me. As it is the duty of this
Court to enforce a fundamental right of a party if any authority has infringed his right,
considerations based upon inconvenience are of no relevance. It is suggested that if
the jurisdiction of this Court is not restricted in the manner indicated, this Court will
be flooded with innumerable petitions. Apart from the fact that this is not a relevant
circumstance, a liberal interpretation of Article 32 has not had that effect during the
ten years of this Court's existence, and I do not see any justification for such an
apprehension in the future. It is further said that if a wider interpretation is given
namely, that if this Court has to ascertain in each case whether a statutory authority
has infringed a fundamental right or not, it will have to decide complicated questions
of fact involving oral and documentary evidence, and the machinery provided under
Article 32 of the Constitution is not adequate to discharge that duty satisfactory. This
again is an attempt to cloud the issue. It the jurisdiction is there and there are
difficulties in the way, this Court will have to evolve by convention or otherwise some
procedure to avoid the difficulties. A similar argument of inconvenience was raised in
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuani Moopil Nayar v. State of Madras ([1959] Supp.) and
was negatived by this Court. This Court evolved a procedure to meet some of the
difficult situations that might arise in particular cases. That apart, this Court also may
evolve or mould further rules of practice to suit different contingencies. If a party
comes to this Court for enforcement of a fundamental right the existence whereof
depends upon proof of facts and the said party has not enhausted the remedies
available to him by going through the hierarchy of tribunal created by a particular Act,
this court, if the party agrees, may allow him to withdraw the petition with liberty to
file it at a later stage, or, if the party does not agree, may adjourn it Sine die till after
the remedies are exhausted. If, on the other hand the party comes here after
exhausting his remedies and after the tribunals have given their findings of fact, this
Court may ordinarily accept the findings of fact as it does in appeals under
Article 136 of the Constitution. If the party complains that the order made against him
by a tribunal is based upon a wrong construction of the provisions of a statute, this
Court may ascertain whether on a correct interpretation of the statute, the petitioner's
fundamental right has been violated. There may be many other situations, but I have
no doubt that this Court will deal with them as and when they arise. I would,
therefore, unhesitatingly reject the argument based on inconvenience.

183. I shall now proceed to deal with the main argument advanced by learned counsel
for the respondent. Briefly stated, the argument is that the Sales-tax Officer has
jurisdiction to construe rightly or wrongly the provisions of the Act, which is a valid
law, and that even if the said authority wrongly constructed a provision of the Act and
imposed the tax, though on a right construction of the said provision it cannot be so
imposed, the said order does not infringe the fundamental right of the petitioner. With
respect, if I may say so, this argument equates the guaranteed right of a citizen under
Article 32 of the Constitution with that of the prerogative writs obtaining in England,
such as writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus issued against orders of inferior
tribunals or authorities. This also confuses the fundamental right enshrined in
Article 32 of the Constitution with one or more of the procedural forms this Court may
adopt to suit each occasion. The approach to the two question is different. The
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is couched in comprehensive
phraseology and, as pointed out earlier, is of the widest amplitude : it is not confined
to the issue of prerogative writs, for the Supreme Court has power to issue directions
or orders to enforce the fundamental right; even in respect of issuing the said writs,
this Court is not oppressed by the procedural technicalities of the prerogative writs in
England. While under Article 32 this Court may, for the purpose of enforcing a
fundamental right, issue a writ of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, is a suitable
case, it may give the relief even in a case not reached by the said writs. The
limitations imposed on the prerogative writs cannot limit the power of the Supreme
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. In order a writ of certiorari may lie against
a tribunal, the said tribunal must have acted without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction conferred upon it by law or there must be some error of law apparent on
the face of the record. There are similar limitations in the case of writs of prohibition
and mandamus. In the context of the issue of the said writs, courts were called upon
to define what "jurisdiction" means. Jurisdiction may be territorial, pecuniary, or
personal. There may be inherent want of jurisdiction or irregular exercise of
jurisdiction. A tribunal may have power to decide collateral facts for the purpose of
assuming jurisdiction; or it may have exclusive jurisdiction to decide even the said
facts. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd edn., Vol. III, the scope of the power of
mandamus, prohibition and certiorari is stated thus at p. 59 :

"The primary function of the three orders is to prevent any excess of

jurisdiction (prohibition land certiorari; or to ensure the exercise of
jurisdiction (mandamus). The jurisdiction of inferior tribunals may
depend upon the fulfilment of some condition precedent (such as
notice) or upon the existence of some particular fact. Such a fact is
collateral to the actual matter which the inferior tribunal has to try, and
the determination whether it exists or not is logically and temporally
prior to the determination of the actual question which the inferior
tribunal has to try. The inferior tribunal must itself decide as to the
collateral fact : when, at the inception of an inquiry by a tribunal of
limited jurisdiction a challenge is made to its jurisdiction, the tribunal
has to make up its mind whether it will act or not, and for that purpose
to arrive at some decision on whether it has jurisdiction or not."

"There may be tribunals which, by virtue of legislation constituting

them, have the power to determine finally the preliminary facts on
which the further exercise of their jurisdiction depends; but, subject to
that, an inferior tribunal cannot, by a wrong decision with regard to a
collateral fact, give itself a jurisdiction which it would not otherwise
possess or deprive itself of a jurisdiction which it otherwise would
possess".

184. It is clear from this passage that a tribunal may have to decide collateral facts to
exercise its jurisdiction, but unless the relevant statute confers an exclusive
jurisdiction on that tribunal, it cannot wrongly clutch at jurisdiction which it has not or
refuse to exercise jurisdiction which it possesses. The doctrine of jurisdiction with its
limitations may be relevant in the matter of issue of prerogative writs to quash the
orders of tribunals made without or in excess of jurisdiction, but the said restrictions
cannot limit the power of the Supreme Court in enforcing the fundamental rights, for
under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcing the said rights it has power to issue
to directions or orders uncontrol by any such limitations. That apart, even within the
narrow confines of the doctrine of jurisdiction, it is wrong to confine the jurisdiction to
inherent want of jurisdiction. A person, who has within the narrow confines of the
doctrine of no authority to function under an Act, if he purports to act under that Act,
his order will be no doubt without jurisdiction. If an authority by a wrong construction
of a section purports to exercise jurisdiction under an Act which it does not possess at
all, it may again be described as inherent want of jurisdiction. But there may be a
many cases on the border line between inherent went of jurisdiction and exercise of
undoubted jurisdiction. The authority may have jurisdiction, to decide certain disputes
under an Act, but by a wrong construction of the provisions of the Act, it may make an
order affecting a particular subjecting-matter, which, on a correct interpretation, it
cannot reach. By a slight modification of the facts arising in the present case, the
point may illustrated thus : A provision of the Sales-tax Act says that the sale of bidis
is not taxable; the statute prohibits taxation of bidis; but the Sales-tax Officer on a
wrong construction of the provision holds that hand-made bidis are taxable; on a
correct interpretation, the Act does not confer any power on the Sales-tax Officer to
tax such bidis. In such a case on a wrong interpretation of the provisions of the Act,
he has exercised jurisdiction in respect of a subject-matter, which, on their correct
interpretation, he does not possess. In a sense he acts without jurisdiction in taxing
goods which are not taxable under the Act.

185. The criterion of jurisdiction must also fail in a case where an aggrieved party
approaches this Court before the Sales-tax authority makes its order. A Sales-tax
authority may issue only a notice threatening to take action under the Act : at that
point of time, there is no decision by the tribunal. The person to whom notice is given
approaches this Court and complains that the authority under the colour of the Act
proposes to infringe his fundamental right; in that case, if this Court is satisfied that
his fundamental right is infringed, it has a duty to enforce it. But it is said that when
the Sales-tax Act provides a machinery for getting the validity of his claim tested by
the tribunals, he must only resort to that machinery. This argument may be relevant
to the question whether a civil courts jurisdiction is ousted in view of the special
machinery created by a statute, but that circumstance cannot have any bearing on the
question of enforcement of fundamental rights, for no low can exclude the jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. Nor is the argument that if a citizen
comes to this Court when the proceeding before the Sales-tax authorities is in the
midstream, this Court will be permitting a citizen to short-circuit the rest of the
procedure laid down by the Act, has any relevance to the question of its jurisdiction
under Article 32. This may be an argument of inconvenience and this Court, as has
already been indicated, may adjourn the case till the entire proceedings come to an
end before the highest Sales-tax authority. This argument of inconvenience cannot
obviously arise when a party approaches this Court after availing himself of all the
remedies available to him under the Act.

186. I would, therefore, hold that the principles evolved by the courts in England and
accept by the courts in India governing the issue of prerogative writs cannot
circumscribe the unlimited power of the Supreme Court to issue orders and directions
for the enforcement of the fundamental rights. Even otherwise, in cases similar to
those covered by the illustration Supra, a prerogative writ can be issued for quashing
the order of an inferior tribunal, and a fortiori an order can be issued for enforcing a
fundamental right under Article 32 of the Constitution.

187. Even if the said legal position be wrong, the present case falls within the limited
scope of the principle governing the issue of a writ of certiorari. In Hari Vishnu
Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque MANU/SC/0095/1954 : [1955]1SCR1104 , the
scope of that power vis-a-vis an error of law has been stated thus :

"It may therefore be taken as settled that a writ of certiorari could be issued to
correct an error of law. But it is essential that it should be something more than
a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face to the record.
The real difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the
statement of the principle as in its application to the facts of a particular case.
When does an error case to be mere error, and become an error apparent on the
face of the record ? Learned counsel on either side were unable to suggest any
clear-cut rule by which the boundary between the two classes of errors could be
demarcated. Mr. Pathak for the first respondent contended on the Strength of
certain observations of Chagla, C.J., in Batuk K. Vyas v. Surat
Municipality MANU/MH/0088/1953 : AIR1953Bom133 , that no error could be
said to be apparent on the face of the record if it was not self-evident, and if it
required an examination or argument to establish it. This test might afford a
satisfactory basis for decision in the majority of cases. But there must be cases
in which even this test might break down, because judicial opinions also differ,
and an error that might be considered by one Judge as self-evident might not be
so considered by another. The fact is that what is an error apparent on the face
of the record, cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively there being an
element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be
determined judicially on the facts of each case."
188. Whether there is an error of law on the face of the record can be determined only
on the facts of each case, and, as this Court pointed out, and error that might be
considered as self-evident by one Judge may not be so considered by another. Except
perhaps in a rare case, it is always possible to argue both ways. I would not,
therefore, attempt to law down a further criterion then that which has been accepted
by this Court, namely, that the question must be left to be determined judicially on
the facts of each case. In the present case, the recitals in the notification clearly
disclose that there is an error of law on the face of the order of the tribunals. If that
error is corrected, as we should do, the position is that the Sales-tax tribunals
imposed a tax on the sales transactions of biris which they had no power to do. In
that event, there is a clear infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioners to
carry on business in biris.
189. Now let us look at the decisions of this Court to ascertain whether all or any of
them have applied the criterion of jurisdiction in the matter of enforcement of
fundamental right of a citizen.

190. Where under section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control
Act, 1947, the Controller was given jurisdiction to determine whether there was non-
payment of rent or not, as well as the jurisdiction on finding that there was non-
payment of rent, to order eviction of a tenant, it was held by this Court in Rai Brij Raj
Krishan v. S. K. Shaw and Brother MANU/SC/0053/1951 : [1951]2SCR145 that
even if the Controller has wrongly decided the question whether there had been non-
payment of rent, his order for eviction on the ground that there had been non-
payment of rent could not be questioned in a civil court. This decision has nothing to
do with the scope of this Court's power to enforce a fundamental right, but it deals
only with the question of the ouster of the civil court's jurisdiction when a special
tribunal is created to finally decide specific matters. In Messrs. Mohanlal Hargovind
Das Biri Merchants Jabalpur v. The State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0082/1955 :
[1955]2SCR509 when the Sale-tax authorities of Madhya Pradesh on a wrong view of
the transactions carried on by the petitioners therein, held that the said transactions
were intra-State transactions and on that basis required them to file a statement of
return of total purchase of tobacco made by them, this court, on a correct view of the
transactions came to the conclusion that they related to inter-State trade and, on that
view, enforced the fundamental right of the petitioners. Though there was no decision
of the Sales-tax authorities that the transactions were intra-State, the notice was on
that basis; but yet that did not prevent this Court from coming to a different
conclusion and enforcing the fundamental right of the petitioners. In Messrs. Ram
Narain Sons Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Sale-tax MANU/SC/0084/1955 :
[1955]2SCR483 the Sales-tax authorities determined the turnover of the petitioners
including therein the proceeds of sales held by them to be intra-State transactions.
This Court held, considering the nature of the transactions once again, that they were
not sales inside the State and were only sales in the course of inter-State trade and
commerce, and, on that basis, enforced the fundamental right of the petitioners. This
Court again enforced the fundamental rights of the petitioners in J. V. Gokul & Co. v.
Asstt. Collector of Sale-tax MANU/SC/0269/1960 : [1960]2SCR852 by reversing the
finding of the Sales-tax Officer, who had held that the sales in that case were intra-
State and holding that they were made in the course of import.

191. Ignoring the first decision wherein there was no order of the Sales-tax Officer on
merits, in the other two decisions, the Sale-tax Officer in exercise of his jurisdiction
decided on the facts before him that the sales were intra-State sales, whereas this
Court on a reconsideration of the facts held that they were outside sales. The criterion
of jurisdiction breaks in these cases, for the Sales-tax Officer has inherent jurisdiction
to decide the question whether the sales were inside sales or outside sales. But an
attempt is made to distinguish these cases on the ground that by a wrong view of the
transactions, the sales-tax Officer violated the provisions of Article 286 of the
Constitution, and therefore he had no inherent jurisdiction to impose the tax. There
are no merits in this distinction. The Sales-tax Officer had jurisdiction to decide under
the relevant sales-tax Act whether a transaction was inside or outside sale. He had the
jurisdiction to decide rightly or wrongly; on the basis of his finding, though a wrong
one, the sales were not exempt from taxation. If, on the facts of the case, the Sales-
tax Officer had arrived at the correct conclusion, he would not have any power to
impose a tax on inter-State sales under the Act; he would also have infringed
Article 286 of the Constitution, if he had imposed a tax on such a sale. The absence of
jurisdiction or want of power in one case was traceable to a statutory injunction, and
in the other to a constitutional prohibition; but that in itself cannot sustain the
distinction in the application of the criterion of jurisdiction, for the either case the said
wrong finding of fact was the root of the error.
192. The decision of this Court in Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0136/1957
: AIR1957SC790 , which necessitated the reference to this Bench, is another
instance where this Court enforced the fundamental right of the petitioner by
accepting an interpretation of the provisions of the Sales-tax Act different from that
put upon them by the Sales-tax authority. There, as in the present case, the question
depended upon the interpretation of the terms of a notification issued under
section 3 of the Sales-tax Act exempting certain goods from taxation. It is said that
the view of this Court wad based upon the judgments of this Court enforcing
fundamental rights on the ground that the impugned provisions whereunder tax was
levied were ultra vires. But the objection taken before this Court in that case was that
the imposition of an illegal tax would not entitle a citizen to invoke Article 32 of the
Constitution, but he must resort to the remedies available under the ordinary law or
proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution. But that argument was negatived on
the basis of the decisions cited before them. The test of jurisdiction now sought to be
applied was not directly raised in that Case. It cannot therefore be said that this Court
went wrong by relying upon irrelevant decisions. The discussion shows that this Court
held in the manner it did as it came to the conclusion that a fundamental right had
been clearly infringed by a wrong interpretation of the notification.

193. Let me now consider the decisions of this Court which are alleged to have
departed from the view expressed in that case. In Gulabdas & Co. v. Asstt. Collector
of Customs MANU/SC/0133/1957 : 1983ECR1618D(SC) , the petitioners were
established importers holding quota rights for importing stationery articles and having
their places of business in Calcutta. They had a licence for a period of 12 months to
import goods known as "Articles' Materials" falling under Serial No. 168(C) of Part IV
of the Policy Statement. Item No. 11 of Appendix XX annexed to the Import Trade
Control Policy Book was described as "Crayons". The petitioners, on the basis of the
licence, imported "Lyra" brand crayons. The Assistant Collector of Customs instead of
assessing duty on them under item 45(A), assessed duty under item 45(4) of the
Indian Customs Tariff. On appeal the Central Board of Revenue confirmed it. It was
argued, inter alia, that the Customs authorities imposed a duty heavier than the
goods had to bear under the relevant provisions. This Court held that no question of
fundamental right arose in that case. In that context, the following observations were
made.

"If the provision of law under which the impugned orders have been
passed are good provisions and the orders passed are with jurisdiction,
whether they be right or wrong on facts, there is really no question of
the infraction of a fundamental right. If a particular decision is
erroneous on facts or merits, the proper remedy is by way of an
appeal."

"If the petitioner were aggrieved by the order of the Central Board of
Revenue they had a further remedy by way of an application for
revision to the Central Government..... All that is really contended is
that the orders are erroneous on merits. That surely does not give rise
to the violation of any fundamental right under Article 19 of the
constitution".

194. In that case, on facts, the Customs authorities held that the petitioners were
liable to pay a particular duty on the goods, and this Court accepted that finding and,
therefore, no question of fundamental right arose. But, if on the other hand the
observations meant that the order of the Customs authorities was binding on this
Court, I find it difficult to accept that view. It is one thing to say that this Court
ordinarily will accept the findings of administrative tribunals on questions of fact, and
it is another to say that the said finding are binding on this Court. I do not think that
this Court intended to lay down that the findings of administrative tribunals are
binding on this Court, however, erroneous or unjust the said findings may be. This
Court again in Bhatnagars and Co. Ltd. v. The Union of India MANU/SC/0017/1957 :
1983ECR1607D(SC) accepted the findings of fact recorded by the relevant Customs
authorities, and observed :

"Essentially the petitioner's grievance is against the conclusions of fact reached

by the relevant authorities. If the said conclusion cannot be challenged before us
in the present writ petition, the petitioner would obviously not be entitled to any
relief of the kind claimed by him."
195. The finding arrived at by the Customs authorities was that, though the licences
were obtained by the petitioner in his name, he had been trafficking in those licences,
that the consignments had been ordered by another individual, that the said individual
held no licence for import of soda ash and as such the consignments received by the
said individual were liable to be confiscated. The finding was purely one of fact, and
this Court accepted : it as correct : on that basis, no question of fundamental right
would arise. The decision in The Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. The
Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad MANU/SC/0248/1960 : [1960]3SCR177
related to the fundamental right of the petitioner therein to carry on the business of
plying motor buses as stage carriages. The State applied for permits for all these
routes under Ch. IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by Act 100 of 1956,
and the petitioner's applied for renewal of its permit. The Regional Transport Authority
rejected the petitioner's right and granted the permit to the State. One of the
contentions raised was that the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution had been
infringed. This Court held that the Regional Transport Authority, on the facts, had held
that there was no discrimination. Dealing with that contention, this Court observed :

"This contention is in our view clearly untenable. The decision of respondent No.
1 may have been right or wrong and as to that we say nothing, but we are
unable to see that decision offends Article 14 or any other fundamental right of
the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 was acting as a quasi-judicial body and if it
has made any mistake in its decision there are appropriate remedies available to
the petitioner for obtaining relief. It cannot complain of a breach of Article 14. "
196. This decision in effect refused to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by
the tribunal for the reasons mentioned therein. If the findings stand no question on
fundamental right would arise. The decision in A. V. Venkateswaran, Collector of
Customs Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani MANU/SC/0158/1961 :
1983ECR2151D(SC) is of no assistance, as it was a decision under Article 226 of the
Constitution. In Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma v. The Ministry of Rehabilitation,
Government of India, New Delhi MANU/SC/0010/1961 : [1962]1SCR505 , the
petitioner therein filed a writ petition for enforcement of his fundamental right on the
ground that the property in question was not evacuee property. The authorities under
the relevant Act decided that it was an evacuee property, and the petitioner carried
the matter to the appellate tribunals without success. This Court dismissing the
petition on the ground that the petitioner had no fundamental right made the
following observations :

"It is, indeed, true that section 28 of the Act cannot affect the power of the High
Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution or of this Court under
Articles 136 and 32 of the Constitution. Where, however, on account of the
decision of an authority of competent jurisdiction the right alleged by the
petitioner has been found not to exist, it is difficult to see how any question of
infringement of that right can arise as a ground for a petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution, unless the decision of the authority of competent jurisdiction on
the right alleged by the petitioner is held to be a nullity or can be otherwise got
rid of. As long as that decision stands, the petitioner cannot complain of any
infringement of a fundamental right. The alleged fundamental right of the
petitioner is really dependent on whether Kunhi Moosa Haji was an evacuee and
whether his property is evacuee property. If the decision of the appropriate
authorities of competent jurisdiction on these questions has become final and
cannot be treated as a nullity or cannot be otherwise got rid of, the petitioner
cannot complain of any infringement of her fundamental right under Articles
19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution."
197. Concluding the judgment, it was observed :

"We are basing our decision on the ground that the competent authorities under
the Act had come to a certain decision, which decision has now become final the
petitioner not having moved against that decision in an appropriate court by an
appropriate proceeding. As long as that decision stands, the petitioner cannot
complain of the infringement of a fundamental right, for she has no such right."
198. It would be seen that the tribunals found, on the facts of that case, that the
property was evacuee property, and if that finding was accepted, no question of
fundamental right arose. It is true that this Court accepted that finding on the ground
that it had become final and the petitioner had not questioned the correctness of that
decision in a proper court by an appropriate proceeding. As I have said earlier, this
Court may ordinarily accept the findings of fact arrived at by tribunals; but, on the
other hand, if the judgment meant that under no conceivable circumstances this Court
could interfere with the findings of an administrative tribunal even if there was a clear
infringement of fundamental right, in my view, it would amount to an abdication of its
jurisdiction in favour of administrative tribunals. Nor does the decision of this Court in
Madan Lal Arora v. The Excise & Taxation Officer, Amritsar MANU/SC/0307/1961 :
[1962]1SCR823 carry the matter further. There, the petitioner was a dealer registered
under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. Notices were served on him by the Sales tax
authority, the last of them being that if the relevant documents were not produced
within a particular date the case would be decided on the "best judgment assessment
basis". It was contended on the basis of section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax
Act that at the date of the notice last mentioned the Sales Tax authorities had no right
to proceed to make any "best judgment" assessment as the three years within which
only such assessment could be made had expired before then. This Court accepted the
construction put forward by the petitioner and held that no assessment could be made
on the petitioner; and, in that view, it enforced his fundamental right. There was no
inherent want of jurisdiction in the Sales Tax authorities, for they had jurisdiction to
construe the relevant provisions of section 11 and hold whether the assessment could
be made within a particular time or not. Notwithstanding that circumstance, this Court
enforced the petitioner's fundamental right. It is not necessary to multiply decisions.
On a superficial reading of the aforesaid decisions, though they may appear to be
conflicting, there is one golden thread which runs through all of them and, that is, a
citizen has a guaranteed procedural right under Article 32 of the Constitution, and that
a duty is cast upon this Court to enforce a fundamental right if it is satisfied that the
petitioner has a fundamental right and that it has been infringed by the State. That
question was approached by this Court from different perspectives, having regard to
the facts of each case. When a fundamental right of a petitioner was infringed by an
action of an officer purporting to exercise a power under an Act which is ultra vires or
unconstitutional, or without jurisdiction, this Court invariably enforced the
fundamental right. So too, this Court give relief under Article 32 of the Constitution
whenever a statutory authority infringed a fundamental right of petitioner on a wrong
construction of the provisions of a statute whereunder he purported to act. This Court,
as a rule of practice, accepted the findings of fact arrived at by tribunals and on that
basis held that no fundamental right was infringed. But I do not understand any of
these decisions as laying down that the amplitude of the jurisdiction conferred on this
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and the guaranteed right given to a citizen
under the aid article should be restricted or limited by some principle or doctrine not
contemplated by the Constitution.

199. Mr. Chari, appearing for one of the interveners, raised a wider question. His
argument is that of relief under Act. 32 cannot be given against an authority
exercising judicial power and that the Sales-tax authorities are authorities exercising
judicial power of the State. This argument is elaborated thus : Under the Constitution,
the institutions created thereunder can exercise either legislative, executive or judicial
functions and sometimes the same institution may have to exercise one or more of
the said powers; institutions exercising legislative powers make laws, those exercising
powers, administer the laws, and those exercising judicial power decide the disputes
between citizens and citizens, between citizens and State and State, the said judicial
powers can be conferred in the manner prescribed by the Constitution on any
institution of individual officer, whether it is a court or not; with that background if
Article 12 of the Constitution is looked at, the argument proceeds, the institutions
exercising judicial power are excluded therefrom. Article 32 enables the Supreme
Court to enforce a fundamental right only against the State action; no fundamental
right can be enforced against an officer exercising judicial power as he does not come
under the definition of State in Article 12 of the Constitution.

200. It is not necessary in this case to decide the two questions, namely, (1) whether
a person can approach this Court to enforce his fundamental right on the ground that
it was infringed by a decision of a court of law, and (2) whether the right guaranteed
by Article 19 of the Constitution can be enforced under Article 32 against the action of
a private individual. We are concerned only with the narrow question whether such a
right can be enforced against the action of an administrative tribunal. It can certainly
be enforced against it, if it comes under the definition of a State under Article 12 of
the Constitution. We have already held that on administrative tribunal is not a court
but is only an executive authority functioning under a statute adopting the norms of
judicial procedure. It is a department of the executive Government exercising
statutory functions affecting the rights of parties. Under Article 12, "the State" has
been defined to include the Government and the Parliament of India and the
Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local and other
authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of
India. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in University of Madras v. Shanta
Bai MANU/TN/0096/1954 : AIR1954Mad67 construed the words "local or other
authorities" under Article 12 of the Constitution thus :

"These words must be construed as ejusdem generis with Government of

Legislature and so construed can only means authorities exercising
governmental functions. They would not include persons natural or juristic who
cannot be regarded a instrumentalities of the Government."
201. Applying this definition to Article 12, it is manifest that authorities constituted
under the Sales-tax Act for assessing the tax would be "other authorities" within the
meaning of Article 12; for the said authorities exercise governmental functions and
are the instrumentalities of Government. But it is contended that if the fathers of our
Constitution intended to include in the definition authorities exercising judicial
functions, having included the Government and the Parliament, they would not have
omitted to mention specifically the judicial institutions therein. This argument may
have some relevance if the question is whether a court of law is included within the
definition of "State", but none when the question is whether an administrative tribunal
is included in the said definition. An administrative tribunal is an executive authority
and it is clearly comprehended by the words "other authorities". If the argument of
learned counsel be accepted, Government also shall be excluded from the definition
where it exercises quasi-judicial functions. So too, Parliament will have to be excluded
when it exercises a quasi-judicial function. That would be to introduce words which are
not in the Article. It is, therefore, clear to my mind that the definition of the word,
whether it takes in a court or not, certainly takes in administrative tribunals. If an
administrative tribunal is a "State" and if any order made or action taken by it
infringes a fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19 of the Constitution, it can be
enforced under Article 32 thereof.

202. Let me now restate the legal position as I conceive it : (1) A citizen has a
fundamental right to carry on business in bidis under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.
(2) The State may make a law imposing reasonable restrictions on that right : it is
conceded that the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act is such a law. (3) The Sales-tax
authorities constituted under the Act, purporting to exercise their powers there under,
may make an illegal order infringing that right. (4) The order may be illegal because
the authority concerned has acted without jurisdiction in the sense that the authority
is not duly constituted under the Act or that it has inherent want of jurisdiction; the
order may be illegal also because the said authority has construed the relevant
provisions of the Act wrongly and has decided the facts wrongly or drawn the
inferences from the facts wrongly. (5) The Act expressly or by necessary implication
cannot give finality to the order of the authority or authorities so as to prevent the
Supreme Court from questioning its correctness when the said order in fact affects the
fundamental right of a citizen. (6) The aggrieved party may approach this Court
before a decision is given by the Sales-tax authority or after the decision is given by
the original authority or when an appeal is pending before the appellate tribunal or
after all the remedies under the Act are exhausted. (7) Whatever may be the stage at
which this Court is approached this Court may it its discretion, if the question involved
is one of jurisdiction or a construction of a provision, decide the question and enforce
the right without waiting till the procedure prescribed by a law is exhausted; but if it
finds that questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law are involved, it may
give an opportunity to the party, if he agrees, to renew the application after he has
exhausted his remedies under the Act, or, if he does not agree, to adjourn the petition
till after the remedies are exhausted. (8) If the fundamental right of the petitioner
depends upon the findings of fact arrived at by the administrative tribunals in exercise
of the powers conferred on them under the Act, this Court may in its discretion
ordinarily accept the findings and dispose of the application on the basis of those
findings.

203. The following of this procedure preserves the jurisdiction of this Court as
envisaged by the Constitution and safeguards the guaranteed rights of the citizens of
this country without at the same time affecting the smooth working of the
administrative tribunals created under the Act. If the other view is accepted, this
Court will be abdicating its jurisdiction and entrusting it to administrative tribunals,
who in a welfare State control every conceivable aspect of human activity and are in a
dominant position to infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of this
country. I would prefer this pragmatic approach to one based on concepts extraneous
to the doctrine of fundamental rights.

204. I would, therefore, hold that in the present case if the Sales-tax officer; by a
wrong construction of the provisions of the Act, made an illegal order imposing a tax
on the petitioner's fundamental right, it is liable to be quashed.

205. The next question is whether the Sales-tax officer has wrongly construed the
notification issued by the Government under section 4(1)(a) of the Act.
Section 4(1) of the Act reads as follows :

"No tax shall be payable on -

(a) The sale of water, milk, salt, newspapers and motor spirit as
defined in the U.P. State Motor Spirit (Taxation) Act, 1939, and
of any other goods which the State Government may by
notification in the official Gazette, exempt.

(b) the sale of any goods by the All-India Spinners' Association

or Gandhi Ashram, Meerut, and their branches or such other
persons or class of persons as the State Government may from
time to time exempt on such conditions and on payment of such
fees, if any, not exceeding eight thousand rupees annually as
may be specified by notification in the Official Gazette."

206. The following notification dated December 14, 1957 was issued under the said
section :

"In partial modification of notifications No. ST-905/X, dated March 31,

1956 and ST-418/X 902 (9)-52, dated January 31, 1957, and in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. XV of 1948) as
amended up to date, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to order
that no tax shall be payable under the aforesaid Act with effect from
December 14, 1957 by the dealers in respect of the following classes of
goods provided that the Additional Central Excise Duties leviable
thereon from the closing of business on December 13, 1957 have been
paid on such goods and that the dealers thereof furnish proof of the
satisfaction of the assessing authority that such duties have been paid.

(1) .............................................................

(2) .............................................................

(3) Cigars, cigarettes, biris and tobacco, that is to say any form of
tobacco, whether cured or uncured and whether manufactured or not
includes the leaf, stalks and stems of the tobacco plant but does not
include any part of a tobacco plant while still attached to the earth."

207. The following facts are not disputed : In regard to the sales of certain
commodities with an inter-State market certain difficulties cropped up in the matter of
imposition of sales-tax by different States. In order to avoid those difficulties, the
Central Government and the States concerned came to an arrangement arrangement
whereunder the State agreed for the enhancement of the excise duties under the
Central Act in respect of certain commodities in substitution for the sales-tax levied
upon them, and that the Central Government agreed to collect the enhanced excise
duty on the said commodities and distribute the additional income derived amongst
the State Governments. To implement that arrangement, Parliament passed Act No.
58 of 1957 called the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act,
1957, on December 24, 1957. The long title of that Act shows that it was enacted to
provide for the levy and collection of additional duties of excise on certain goods and
for the distribution of a part of the net proceeds thereof among the Stages in
pursuance of the principles of distribution formulated and the recommendation made
by the Finance Commission. Under the Central Act, before the amendment, there was
excise duty on tobacco used for various purposes, including machine-made bidis, but
there was no excise duty on hand-made bidis. therefore, under the amended Act,
additional duty was payable only on tobacco products already taxable under original
Act; with the result, enhanced tax was imposed on tobacco which went in to make
hand-made bidis, but no additional tax was imposed on hand-made bidis.

208. With this background let us look at the notification issued under Section 4(1) of
the Act. There is some controversy whether that notification was issued under section
4(1)(a) or 4(1)(b) of the Act; but that need not detain us, for I shall assume that the
notification was issued under section 4(1)(b). The goods specified therein were
exempted conditionally. The goods exempted under the notification were bidis and
tobacco. Bidis might be hand-made or machine-made, and the tobacco included
tobacco out of which bidis were made. Under the first part of the notification the said
bidis and tobacco were exempted from the sales-tax from December 14, 1957. The
condition imposed for the operation of that exemption was that additional central
excise duties leviable thereon from the closing of business on December 13, 1957,
should have been paid on such bidis and tobacco. Briefly stated, the bidis and
tobacco, among others, were exempted from payment of sales-tax, if excise duties
leviable thereon were paid during the relevant period. So far as the hand-made bidis
were concerned under the amending Act no tax was leviable thereon. The condition
was applicable to bidis as a unit. Out of bidis, no excise duty was leviable on hand-
made bidis, while excise duty was leviable in respect of machine-made bidis.
therefore, the condition imposed has no application to hand-made bidis, for under the
said condition only tax leviable on the said bidis had to be paid, and, as no excise duty
was leviable in respect of hand-made bidis, they were clearly exempted under the said
notification. Assuming that the said notification applied only to goods in respect
whereof additional excise duty was leviable, the payment of additional duty in respect
of tobacco which went in making hand-made bidis was also a condition attached to the
exemption of such bidis from taxation. It is not disputed that additional excise duty on
the said tobacco was paid by the appellant. I, therefore, hold, on a plain reading of
the expressed terms of the notification, that hand made bidis were exempted from
taxation under the Act.

209. There was also every justification for such exemption. It appears from the record
that the merchants doing business in hand-made bidis were not able to complete with
businessmen manufacturing machine-made bidis. Indeed, before the amending Act,
excise duty was imposed on machine-made bidis mainly, though not solely, for
protecting the business in the former in competition with the latter. In the
circumstances, it was but reasonable to assume that the State Government by the
amending Act did no intend to impose sales-tax on hand-made bidis, though
additional excise duty was imposed on tobacco out of which the said bidis were
manufactured. The entire scheme of protection of one against unfair competition from
the other would break if the Central Government could impose additional excise duty
on tobacco and the State could impose sales-tax on bidis made out of the said
tobacco. That this was the intention of the State Government was made clear by the
subsequent notification dated December 14, 1957, exempting hand-made bidis from
taxation without any condition. I am, therefore, clearly of the opinion that, on a fair
reading of the said notification, sales of hand-made bidis were exempted from
taxation under the Act.

210. In the result, there will be an order directing the responsible not to proceed to
realize any sales-tax from the petitioner on the basis of the order dated December 20,
1958. The petitioner will have her costs.

211. Now coming to civil Appeal No. 572 of 1960, the said appeal was dismissed by
for non-prosecution by order of this Court dated February 20, 1961. The assessee firm
has filed an application for restoration of the said appeal on the ground that it did not
press the appeal in view of the decision of this Court in Kailash Nath v. State of Uttar
Pradesh MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 ; but, as I have said that the said
decision is still good law, this ground is not open to the said firm. In the result the
application for restoration of civil Appeal No. 572 of 1960 is dismissed with costs.

M. Hidayatullah, J.

212. The facts have been set out fully in the order of Venkatarama Aiyar, J., and need
not be stated at length. The petitioner is a partner in a firm of bidi manufacturers
registered under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act. Under a scheme by which certain
additional Central Excise duties are being levied under special Acts for the purpose
and are being distributed among the States in respect of the certain classes of goods,
on which the States have foregone collection of sales tax locally, the Government of
Uttar Pradesh issued notification on December 14, 1957, exempting bidis from sales
tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, provided the additional duties of excise were paid.
This was followed by another notification on November 25, 1958, by which bidis,
whether machine-made or hand-made, where exempted without any condition from
sales tax from July 1, 1958. The dispute in this petition is about the quarter ending
June 30, 1958, in which the firm claimed the exemption. This claim was rejected on
the ground that the firm had not paid any additional excise duty on bidis. An appeal
followed, but was unsuccessful, and though a revision lay under the Sales Tax Act,
none was filed. The firm filed instead a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in
the High Court of Allahabad, but was again unsuccessful, mainly because the firm had
other remedies under the Sales Tax Act which it had not available of. The firm,
however, obtained a certificate from the High Court, and filed an appeal in this Court.
Ujjambai filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for the same reliefs.
When she obtained a rule in the petition, the firm did not prosecute the appeal and it
was dismissed. In this petition, she claims a writ of certiorari against the order of the
Sales Tax Officer as also a mandamus to the Department not to levy the tax. As a
further precautionary measure, lest it be held that the remedy under Article 32 is
misconceived, the firm has also applied for the revival of the appeal. I shall deal with
the application later.

213. The question is whether the exemption granted by the notification of December
14, 1957, exempting bidis conditionally upon payment of additional duty of excise
applied to the petitioner during the quarter ending June 30, 1958. This question
depends upon the words of the notification and the schedule of articles on which
additional duty of excise was payable and the fact whether such excise duty was, in
fact paid or not. But the question which has been debated in this case is one which
arises at the very threshold, and it is this : whether a petition under Article 32 can lie
if the petitioner alleges a breach of fundamental rights, not because the tax is
demanded under an invalid or unconstitutional law but because the authority is said to
have misconstrued certain provisions of that law. The petitioner contends that she has
paid additional excise duty on tobacco used in the manufacture of bidis and the word
"tobacco" is used comprehensively in the Central Excise Salt Act. 1944, and in Act No.
58 of 1957 and would include bidis in the exemption. The Sales Tax Officer rejected
this claim, observing :

"The exemption envisaged in this notification applies to dealers in respect of

sales of Biris, provided that the additional Central Excise duties leviable thereon
from the closing of business on December 13, 1957, have been paid on such
goods. The assessee paid no such Excise duties. Sales of Biris by the assessee
are, therefore, liable to Sales Tax."
214. Whether there has been a misconstruction of any of the provisions is a matter
which, of course, could be considered on revision, or in a reference to the High Court
of point of law a rising out of the order finally passed or even ultimately by appeal to
this Court with its special leave under Article 136. The petitioner, however, contends
that she is entitled to file a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, if by a wrong
construction of a provision of law, a tax is demanded which is not due because it
amounts to a deprivation of property without authority of law and also a restriction
upon her right to carry on trade or business. The breach of fundamental rights is thus
stated to arise under Articles 31(1) and 19(1)(g) primarily by the wrong interpretation
and secondarily by the result thereof, namely, the demand of a tax which is not due.
The other side contends that no fundamental rights can be said to be breached when
the authorities act under a valid law even though by placing their interpretation on
some provision of law they may err, provided they have the jurisdiction to deal with
the matter and follow the principles of natural justice. Any such error, according to the
respondents, must be corrected by the ordinary process of appeals or revisions etc.
and not by a direct approach to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution. Both sides cite cases in which petitions under Article 32 were previously
field and disposed of by this Court, either by granting writs or by dismissing the
petitions. In some of them, the question was considered, but in some it was not,
because no objection was raised.

215. There, however, appears to be some conflict on this point. In Kailash Nath v.
State of U.P. MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 , where the allegation was that
an exemption was wrongly refused on a misconstruction of a notification under
section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, it was held that the fundamental rights of the
taxpayer were in jeopardy, and the remedy under Article 32 was open. Govinda
Menon, J., then observed :

"If tax is levied without due legal authority on any trade or business, then it is
open to the citizen aggrieved to approach this Court for a writ under
Article 32 since his right to carry on a trade is violated, or infringed by the
imposition and such being the case Article 19(1)(g) comes into play."
216. This proposition was rested upon the case of this Court in the Bengal Immunity
Company MANU/SC/0083/1955 : [1955]2SCR603 ; but a close examination of the
latter case shows that no such proposition was stated there. In the latter case,
exemption was claimed on the ground that the sales sought to be taxed were made in
the course of inter-State trade and the Bihar Sales Tax Act, which purported to
authorise such levy, offended Article 286(2) of the Constitution and thus was invalid.
On the other hand, doubts were cast on the decision in Kailash Nath's
case MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 on this point, in Tata Iron and Steel Co.
Ltd. v. S. R. Sarkar MANU/SC/0270/1960 : [1961]1SCR379 ; but the question was
left open. The question has now been raised and argued before this special Bench. In
this judgment, I am only concerned with the question of constitutional law raised,
since I agree with the interpretation placed on the notification by my brother, Kapur,
J.

217. The general principles underlying Part III of the Constitution have been stated so
often by this Court that it is hardly necessary to refer to them, except briefly, before
considering to what extent and in what circumstances actions or order of judicial,
quasi-judicial and administrative authorities are open to question under Article 32. The
Constitution has accepted a democratic form of Government with the characteristic
division of authority of the State between the Legislature, the Judiciary and the
Executive. The Constitution being federal in form, there is a further division of powers
between the center and the States. This division is also made in the jurisdictions of
the three Departments of the State. To achieve these purposes, the distribution of
legislative powers in indicated in Part XI and of taxes in Part XII, and certain special
provisions regarding trade, commerce and intercourse within the territory of India are
placed in Part XIII. In addition to these Parts of the Constitution, to which some
reference may be necessary hereafter, the Constitution has also in other Parts
indicated what things can only be done by law to be made by Parliament or the State
Legislatures. These Articles are too numerous to specify here. But this much,
however, is clear that where the Constitution says that a certain thing can be done
under authority of law, it intends to convey that no action is justified unless the
legality of that action can be supported by a law validly made. The above is, in
outline, the general pattern of conferral of power upon the Legislature and the
Executive by the people.

218. The people, however, regard certain rights as paramount, because they embrace
liberty of action to the individual in matters of private life, social intercourse and share
in the government of the country and other spheres. The people who vested the three
limps of Government with their power and authority, at the same time kept back
these rights of citizens and also sometimes of non-citizens, and made them inviolable
except under certain conditions. The rights thus kept back are placed in Part III of the
Constitution, which is headed "Fundamental Rights", and the conditions under which
these right can be abridged are also indicated in that Part. Briefly stated, the
conditions are that they can be abridged only by a law in the public interest or to
achieve a public purpose. These rights are not like the Directive Principles, which
indicate the policy and general pattern for State action to enable India to emerge,
after its struggle with poverty, disease, inequalities and prejudices, as a welfare State.
These Directive Principles are not justiciable, but any breach of fundamental rights
gives a cause of action to the aggrieved person.

219. The sum total of this is that the Constitution insists upon the making of
constitutional and otherwise valid laws as the first step towards State action. No
arbitrary or capricious action affecting the rights of citizens and others is to be
tolerated, if it is unsupported by such law. But even the Legislature cannot go beyond
the limits set by the Chapter on Fundamental Rights, because ingress upon those
rights is either forbidden absolutely of on condition that the action is either in an
emergency or dictated by the overriding public interest. The executive can never
affect the fundamental rights unless a valid law enables that to be done. To secure
these fundamental rights, the High Courts by Article 226 as part of their general
jurisdiction and the Supreme Court by Article 32 have been given the power to deal
with any breach complained of and to rectify matters by the issue of directions, orders
or writs including certain high prerogative writs. Article 32 is included in the Chapter
on Fundamental Rights, and provides an expressly guaranteed remedy of approach to
the Supreme Court in all cases where fundamental rights are invaded. This right is the
most valuable right of the citizen against the State. The Article provides further that
the of moving the Supreme Court is also fundamental right. Thus, it was that this
Court said in Romesh Thappar's case MANU/SC/0006/1950 : 1950CriLJ1514 that
this Court is the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights, in Rashid Ahmed v.
Municipal Board, Kairana MANU/SC/0005/1950 : [1950]1SCR566 that the Supreme
Court's powers under Article 32 are wider than the mere right to issue prerogative
writs, in A. K. Gopalan's case MANU/SC/0012/1950 : 1950CriLJ1383 that the
fundamental rights are the residue from the power surrendered by the people and
kept back by them to themselves, and in Champakam Doraijan's case [1961] 3 S.C.R.
525 that the fundamental rights are sacrosanct and incapable of being abridged by
any legislative or executive action except to the extent provided in the appropriate
Articles in Part III. It may, however, be stated that under certain Articles of the
Constitution, laws can be made without a challenge in Courts, notwithstanding the
constitution (see, for example Article 329), and other considerations may arise in
respect of those laws. In this judgment, therefore, I shall deal with those laws and
situations only, which admittedly are affected by the Chapter on Fundamental Rights.

220. The invasion of fundamental rights may assume many forms. It may proceed
directly from laws which conflict with the guaranteed rights. It may proceed from
executive action unsupported by any valid law or laws in spite of them. Examples of
both kinds are to be found in the Reports. In K. T. Moopil Nair's
case MANU/SC/0042/1960 : [1961]3SCR77 , a taxing statute was held to be
discriminatory and also unreasonable because of the restrictions it created and was
struck down under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the constitution. In Tata Iron and Steel
Co., Ltd. case MANU/SC/0270/1960 : [1961]1SCR379 , a threat to recover a tax
twice over was said to offend fundamental rights. In both these cases, Article 32 was
invoked successfully. In the first kind of cases the law itself fails, and if the law fails,
so does any action under it. In the second kind of cases, the laws are valid but in their
application, the executive departments make their own actions vulnerable. A law can
give protection to an action only which is within itself, but it cannot avail, if the action
it outside. Thus, in Chintaman Rao's case MANU/SC/0008/1950 : [1950]1SCR759 ,
a law was struck down because it arbitrarily and excessively invaded a fundamental
right and in Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja v. The State of
Bombay MANU/SC/0034/1952 : 1952CriLJ1167 , section 12 of the Bombay Public
Safety Measures Act, 1947 was declared void (after January 26, 1950) as it did not
proceed upon any purported classification. Of these two cases, the first was a petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution and the latter, an appeal on a certificate of the
High Court under Article 132 of the Constitution. The method of approach to this court
was different, but it made no difference to the application of the provisions of Part III.
There are other such decisions, but these two will suffice.

221. The inference is, therefore, quit clear that this Court will interfere under
Article 32 if a breach of fundamental rights comes before it. and indeed, it was so
stated in Romesh Thappar's case MANU/SC/0006/1950 : 1950CriLJ1514 that this
Court -

"cannot, consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it, refuse to entertain
applications seeking protection against infringements of such rights,"
although such applications are made to the Court in the first instance without resort to
a High Court, and the American cases about exhausting of other remedies were not
followed. In Himmatlal's case MANU/SC/0021/1954 : [1954]1SCR1122 this Court
issued a writ prohibiting assessment of a tax under an invalid law, even though there
was no assessment begun or even a threat of one. In K. K. Kochunni Moopil Nayar v.
State of Madras MANU/SC/0018/1959 : (1959) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 316 Das, C.J. after
considering all previous cases of this Court laid down.

"Further, even if the existence of other adequate legal remedy may be taken into
consideration by the High Court in deciding whether it should issue any of the
prerogative writs on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, as to which
we say nothing now - this Court cannot, on a similar ground decline to entertain a
petition under Article 32, for the right to move this Court by appropriate proceedings
for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution is itself a
guaranteed right."

222. In that case, the learned Chief Justice said that, if necessary, this Court may
even get a fact of facts proved by evidence.

223. The view expressed in the last case finds further support from what
Gajendragadkar, J., said very recently in Daryao v. The State of
U.P. MANU/SC/0012/1961 : [1962]1SCR574 :

"If the petition field in the High Court under Article 226 is dismissed not on the
merits but because of the laches of the laches of the party applying for the writ
of because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it,
then the dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute a bar to a subsequent
petition under Article 32 except in cases where and if the facts thus found by the
High Court may themselves be relevant even under Article 32. "
224. Gajendragadkar, J. then went on to consider the matter from the point of view of
res judicata, and held that in some cases, that principle would apply if no appeal
against the order of the High Court was field, but not in others. This must be so,
because if there is a decision of the High Court negating fundamental rights or their
breach, then the decision of the competent Court must be removed by appeal to
establish the rights or their breach.

225. From these cases, it follows that what may be said about a direct appeal to this
Court without following the intermediate steps may not be said about
Article 32, because resort to other forums for parallel reliefs is strictly not necessary
where a party complains of breach of fundamental rights. Of course, when he makes
an application under Article 32, he take the risk of either succeeding or failing on that
narrow issue, and a finding of the High Court or some tribunal below on some point, if
not set aside in appropriate proceedings, may stand in his way. The right under
Article 32 is not a right of appeal, and cannot be used as such, and this Court may not
be in a position to examine the case with the same amplitude as in appeal. But, if a
party takes the risk of coming to this court direct on the narrow issue, he cannot be
told that he has other remedies. To take this restricted view of Article 32 may, in
some cases, by delay or expense involved in the other remedies, defeat the
fundamental rights before even they can be claimed. But this is not to say that the
other remedies are otiose. The issue to be tried under Article 32 is a narrow one, and
once that issue fails, everything else must fail. In jurisdictions like that under
Article 226 and/or in appeals under Article 132 or Article 136, not only can the breach
of fundamental rights be considered but all other matters which the Court may permit
to be raised. It, therefore, follows that if a person chooses to invoke Article 32, he
cannot be told that he must go elsewhere first. The right to move this Court is
guaranteed. But this Court in dealing with the petition will deal with it from the narrow
standpoint of fundamental rights and not as a appeal.

226. Though the area of action may be thus limited, the power exercisable therein are
vast. The power to issue writes in the nature of the five high prerogative writs of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition quo warranto and certiorari is, in itself,
sufficient to compel obedience by the State (as defined in Article 12) and observance
by it of the Constitution and the laws in all cases where a breach of fundamental right
or rights is established. The writ of mandamus is a very flexible writ and has always
been called in aid to ampliate justice and proves sufficient in most cases of
administrative lapses of excesses. Then, there is the writ of certiorari to get rid of
orders which affect fundamental rights, the writ of prohibition to stop action before it
can be completed, the writ of quo warranto to question a wrongful assumption of
office, and lastly, the writ of habeas corpus to secure liberty. Indeed, and observed by
Lord Atkin (then, Atkin, L.J.) in Rex v. Electricity Commissioner (1924) 1 K.B. 171 :

"Whenever any body or persons having legal authority to determine questions

affecting the rights of subjects and having the duty to act judicially act in excess
of their legal authority they are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the Kings
Bench Division exercised in these writs."
227. What was said of judicial action and of the writ of certiorari applies equally to
other writs and actions of administrative agencies, which are executive or ministerial.
The powers of the Supreme Court and the High Courts in our country are no whit less
than those of the Kings Bench Division. Indeed, the power conferred on him is made
even more ample by enabling these superior Courts to issue in addition to the
Prerogative Writs, directions, orders and writs other than the named writs, and the
concluding words of Article 32(2) "whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement
of any of the rights conferred by this Part (Part III)" show the wide ambit of the
power. As far back as Basappa v. Nagappa MANU/SC/0098/1954 : [1955]1SCR250 ,
256.), Mukherjee, J. (as he then was) observed :
"In view of the express provisions in our Constitution we need not now look back
to the early history or the procedural technicalities of these writs in English law,
nor feel oppressed by any differences or change of opinion expressed in
particular cases by English Judges."
228. Speaking then of the writ of certiorari the learned Judge added :

"We can make an order or issue a writ in the nature of certiorari in all
appropriate cases and in appropriate manner, so long as we keep to the broad
and fundamental principles that regulate the exercise of jurisdiction in the
matter of granting such writs in English law."
229. What has been said here has my respectful concurrence, and is applicable to the
other writs also. These principles have now become firmly established in the
interpretation of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. The difference in the two
Articles is in two respects" firstly, Article, 32 is available only for the enforcement of
fundamental rights, but the High Courts can use the powers for other purposes (a
power which Parliament can also confer on the Supreme Court by law, vide Article
139), and secondly, that the right of moving the Supreme Court is itself a guaranteed
right (Article 32(1) and is unaffected by the powers of the High Court (Article 226(2)).

230. The foregoing is a resume of the interpretations places upon Article 32, but there
are other provisions of the Constitution relating to the Supreme Court which must be
viewed alongside, because the Supreme Court has other roles to perform under the
Constitution. Those provisions give an indication of how the Supreme Court is
intended to use its powers.

231. The Supreme Court is made, by Articles 133 and 134, the final Court of appeal
over the High Court in all civil and criminal matters, though the right of appeal arises
only in certain classes of cases and subject to certain conditions. Under
Articles 132 and 133(2), the Supreme Court is also the final Court of appeal over the
High Court in all matters involving an interpretation of the Constitution. By
Article 136, the Supreme Court has been given the power to grant, in its discretion,
special leave to appeal to itself from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence
or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any Court or tribunal in the
territory of India. The last power is overriding, because Article 136 commences with
the words "notwithstanding any thing in this Chapter". Only one exemption has been
made in favour of a Court or tribunal constituted by or ordered under any law relating
to the Armed Forces.

232. There are other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court also, which may be described
as advisory and original, arising in special circumstances with which we are not
concerned. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court sets it at the top of the
hierarchy of civil and criminal Courts of civil judicature. Articles 132, 133, 134 and 135
make the Supreme Court the final Court of appeal but only in cases which are first
carried before the High Court in accordance with the law relating to those cases.
Access to the Supreme Court under Articles 132-135 is not direct but through the High
Court. There can be no abridging of the process. But, under Article 136, the Supreme
Court has the jurisdiction to grant special leave, though it has declared in several
cases that it would exercise its discretion under Article 136 only against a final order.
See Chandi Prasad Chokhani v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0310/1961 :
[1961]43ITR498(SC) , Indian Aluminium Co. v. Commissioner of Income tax (Civil
Appeal No. 176 of 1959 decided on April 24, 1961.), and Kanhaiyalal Lohia v.
Commissioner of Income-tax MANU/SC/0173/1961 : [1962]44ITR405(SC) . In
exercising the discretionary powers to grant special leave, the Supreme Court now
insists on the aggrieved party exhausting all its remedies under the law before
approaching it.
233. Form what has been said above, it is clear that there are three approaches to
this Court, and they are : (a) by appeal against the decision of the High Court, (b) by
special leave granted by this Court against the decision of any Court or tribunal in
India and (c) by a petition under Article 32. No Court or tribunal in India other than
the Supreme Court and the High Courts has been invested with the jurisdiction to deal
with breaches of fundamental rights, though the Constitution has reserved the power
to Parliament to invest by law this jurisdiction in any other Court [Article 32(3)]. As a
result, the enforcement of fundamental rights can only be has in the High Court or the
Supreme Court. In most taxation laws, there is a jurisdiction and a right to invoke the
advisory jurisdiction of the High Court and in some there is a right of appeal or
revision to the High Court, but the question of a breach of fundamental rights cannot
be raised in proceedings before the tribunals. In its advisory jurisdiction, the High
Court can only answer the question referred to it or raise one which arises out of the
order passed and in its appellate and revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can deal
with the matter on law or fact or both (as the case may be) but only in so far as the
tribunal has the jurisdiction. In these jurisdictions, the plain question of the
enforcement of fundamental rights may not arise. There is, however, nothing to
prevent a part moving a separate petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and
raising the issue, as was actually done in this case. The result thus is that no question
of a breach of fundamental rights can arise except under Articles 226 and 32 of the
Constitution, and it must be raised before the High Court and the Supreme Court
respectively, by a proper petition. But, where the High Court decides such an issue on
a petition under Article 226 the question can be brought this Court under
Article 132 and 136.

234. If this be the true position, and if this Court can only deal with question of breach
of fundamental rights in petitions under Article 32 and in appeals against the orders of
the High Court under Article 226, I am of opinion that a petition under Article 32 must
always lie where a breach is complained of, though, I must say again, if the matter is
brought before this Court under Article 32, the only question that can be considered is
the breach of fundamental rights and none other.

235. The right to move this Court being guaranteed, the petition may lie, but there
are other thing to consider before it can be said in what cases this Court will interfere.
I shall now consider in what kind of cases the powers under Article 32 will be used by
this Court. Since this case arises under taxing statute, I shall confine myself to taxing
laws, because other considerations may arise in other circumstances and the differing
facts are sometimes so subtle as to elude one, unless they are before him. The
challenge on the ground of a breach of fundamental rights may be against a law or
against executive action. I am leaving out of account action by the Court of civil
judicature, and am not pausing to consider whether the word "State" as defined in
Article 12 includes the ordinary Courts of civil judicature. That question does not arise
here and must be left for decision in a case in which it properly does. Whether or not
be word "State" covers the ordinary Courts, there is authority to show that tribunals
which play the dual role as deciding issues in a quasi-judicial way and acting as the
instrumentalities of Governments are within the word "State" as used in Part III of the
Constitution. In the Bidi Supply Co., v. Union of India MANU/SC/0040/1956 :
[1956]29ITR717(SC) , Das, C.J., observed :

"Here 'the State' which includes its Income-tax department has by an illegal
order denied to the petitioner, as compared with other Bidi merchants who are
similarly situate, equality before the law or the equal protection of laws and the
petitioner can legitimately complain of an infraction of his fundamental rights
under article 14 of the Constitution."
236. Again, in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra
Pradesh MANU/SC/0017/1958 : (1959) Supp. 1 S.C.R. 319 it was observed :
"The concept of a quasi-judicial act implies that the act is not wholly judicial; it
describes only a duty cast on the executive body or authority to conform to
norms of judicial procedure in performing some acts in exercise of it executive
power."
237. The taxing departments are instrumentalities of the State. They are not a part of
the legislature; nor are they a part of the judiciary. Their functions are the assessment
and collection of taxes, and in the process of assessing taxes, the have to a follow a
pattern of action, which is considered judicial. They are not thereby converted into
Courts of civil judicature. They still remain the instrumentalities of the State and are
within the definition of 1'State' in Article 12. In this view of the matter, their actions
must be regarded, in the ultimate analysis, as executive in nature, since their
determinations result in the demand of tax which neither the legislature nor the
judiciary can collect. Thus, the actions of these quasi-judicial bodies may be open to
challenge on the ground of breach of fundamental rights.

238. I have already said that the attack on fundamental rights may proceed from laws
or from executive action. Confining myself to taxation laws and executive action in
furtherance of taxation laws, I shall now indicate how the breaches of fundamental
rights can arise and the extent of interference by this Court under Article 32. Taxing
laws have to conform to provisions in Parts XII of the Constitution : they are
circumscribed further by Part XIII, and they can only be made by an appropriate
legislature as indicated in Part XI. these are the provisions dealing with the making of
taxing laws. The total effect of these provisions is summed up in Article 165, which
says :

"No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law."

239. Law thus a condition precedent to the demand of a tax. A tax cannot be levied by
the State, unless a law to that effect exists, and that law must follow and obey all the
directions in the Constitution about the making of laws. In other words, the law must
be one validly made.

240. Taxation laws may suffer from two defects, and they are : (a) if they are not
made within the four corners of the powers conferred by the Constitution on the
particular legislature, or (b) if they are opposed to fundamental rights. A law may fail
as ultra vires, though it is not opposed to fundamental rights, because it is outside the
powers of the legislature that enacted it, or because it is a colourable exercise of
power, or if the law was not made in accordance with the special procedure for
making it. A simple example is imposition of Profession Tax by Parliament, which it
has no power to impose, or the imposition of tax above Rs. 250 per year on a single
person by the State Legislature, which is beyond the powers of the State Legislature.
In these cases, the laws fail, because in the first case, Parliament lacks the power
completely, and in the second, because the State Legislature transgresses a limit set
for it. Such a law is no law at all, and will be struck down under Article 265 read with
the appropriate provisions of the constitution. A question arising under
Article 265 cannot be brought before the Supreme Court under Article 32, because
that Article is not in the Chapter on Fundamental Rights. But an executive action to
enforce the law would expose the executive action to the processes of Article 226 and
32, if a fundamental right to carry on a profession or an occupation, trade or business
is put in jeopardy. In the order of reference in this case, this position is summed up in
the following observations :

"Where the provision is void, the protection under Article 265 fails, and what
remains is only unauthorised interference with property or trade by a State
Officer, and articles 19(1)(f) and (g) are attracted."
241. Where the law fails being opposed to fundamental rights as, for example, when it
is void because it involves discrimination or otherwise invades rights protected by Part
III, the protection of Article 265 is again lost. Indeed, the law fails not because of
Article 265 but because of Article 13, and a cause of action under Article 35 may
arises. This was recognised in K. T. Moopil Nair v. State of
Kerala MANU/SC/0042/1960 : [1961]3SCR77 where it was observed :

"Articles 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State in so far as it
provides that the State shall not levy or collect a tax, except by authority of law,
that is to say, a tax cannot be levied or collected by a mere executive fiat. It has
to be done by authority of law, which must mean valid law. In order that the law
may be valid, the tax proposed to be levied must be within the legislative
competence of the legislature imposing a tax and authorising the collection
thereof and, secondly, the tax must be subject to the conditions laid down in
Article 13 of the Constitution. One of such conditions envisaged by
Article 13(2) is that the Legislature shall not make any law which takes away or
abridges the equality clause in Article 14, which enjoins the State not to deny to
any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws of the
country. It cannot be disputed that if the Act infringes the provisions of
Article 14 of the Constitution, it must be struck down as unconstitutional".
242. This arose in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

243. It appears that taxation laws were unsuccessfully challenged under Article 32 of
the Constitution as a breach of Article 31(1) in Ramjilal's case MANU/SC/0057/1951
: [1951]19ITR174(SC) and Laxmanappa Hanumantappa v. Union of India (1951)
S.C.R. 769. In the former, the reason given was :

"Reference has next to be made to article 265 which is in Part XII, Chapter I,
dealing with 'Finance'. That article provides that no tax shall be levied or
collected except by authority of law. There was no similar provision in the
corresponding chapter of the Government of India Act, 1935. If collection of
taxes amounts to deprivation of property within the meaning of
Article 31(1), then there was no point in making a separate provision again as
has been made in Article 265. It, therefore, follows that clause (1) of
article 31 must be regarded as concerned with deprivation of property otherwise
than by the imposition or collection of tax, for otherwise article 265 becomes
wholly redundant......... In our opinion, the protection against imposition and
collection of taxes save by authority of the law directly comes from
article 265, and is not secured by clause (1) of article 31. Article 265 not being
in Chapter III of the Constitution, its protection is not fundamental right which
can be enforced by an application to this Court under article 32. It is not our
purpose to say that the right secured by article 265 may not be enforced. It may
certainly be enforced by adopting proper proceedings. All that we wish to state is
that this application in so far as it purports to be founded on article 32 read with
article 31(1) to this Court is misconceived and must fail."
244. Similar observations were made in the other case.

245. If by these observations it is meant to convey that the protection under

Article 265 cannot be sought by a petition under Article 32, I entirely agree. But if it is
meant to convey that a taxing law which is opposed to fundamental rights must be
tested only under Article 265, I find it difficult to agree. Articles 31(1) and 265 speak
of the same condition. A comparison of these two Articles shows this :
Article 31(1) - "No person shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law."

Article 265 - "No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of

law."

246. The Chapter on Fundamental Rights hardly stands in need of support from
Article 265. If the law void under that Chapter, and property is seized to recover a tax
which is void, I do not see why Article 32 cannot be invoked. Where the authority of
the law fails a tax, Article 265 is offended, and the tax cannot be collected. A
collection of such a tax will also offend Article 32. Where the law is opposed to
fundamental rights, and in the collection of such a void tax, a person is deprived of his
property, Article 31(1) is offended. It is not possible to circumscribe Article 32 by
making the remedy only upon Article 265.

247. From this, it is clear that laws which do not offend Part III and are not otherwise
ultra vires are protected from any challenge whether under Article 265 or under the
Chapter on Fundamental Rights. Where the laws are ultra vires but do not per se
offend fundamental rights (to distinguish the two kinds of defects), they are capable
of a challenge under Article 265, and the executive action, under Article 32. Where
they are intra vires otherwise but void being opposed to fundamental rights, they can
be challenged under Article 265 and also Article 32.

248. This position, however, changes radically when the law is valid but the action
under it is challenged. The real difference in such cases arises, because the law is not
challenged at all. What is challenged is the interpretation of the law by the taxing
authorities, and a breach of fundamental rights is said to arise from the wrong
interpretation. In considering this matter, several kinds of cases must be noticed.
Where the action of an officer of the State is wholly without jurisdiction (as, for
example, when a sales tax officer imposes income-tax or vice versa, though such
things are hardly likely to happen), it can have no support from the law he purports to
apply. Cases of jurisdiction thus come within Article 32. Other examples are an
attempt to recover a tax twice over, where the first collection is legal (Tata Iron and
Steel Company's case MANU/SC/0270/1960 : [1961]1SCR379 ; or acting beyond
the period of limitation (Madanlal Arora v. The Excise and Taxation Officer,
Amritsar) MANU/SC/0307/1961 : [1962]1SCR823 . In such cases, even if the taxing
authority thought on its own understanding of the law that it was acting within it
jurisdiction, it would not avail, and the want of jurisdiction, if proved, would attract
Article 32. Speaking of such a situation, the order of reference in this case has said :

"This again is a case in which the authority had no jurisdiction under the Act to
take proceedings for assessment of tax, and it makes no difference that such
assumption of jurisdiction was based on a misconstruction of statutory
provisions."
249. The above was said of Madanlal Arora's case MANU/SC/0307/1961 :
[1962]1SCR823 .

250. But where the law in made validly and in conformity with the fundamental rights
and the officer enforcing it acts with jurisdiction, other considerations arise. If, in the
course of his duties, he has to construe provisions of law and miscarries, it gives a
right of appeal and revision, where such lie, and in other appropriate cases, resort can
be had to the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the matter
brought before this Court by further appeals. This is because every erroneous decision
does not give rise to a breach of fundamental rights. Every right of appeal or revision
cannot be said to merge in the enforcement of fundamental rights. Such errors can
only be corrected by the processes of appeals and revisions. Article 32 does not, as
already stated, confer an appellate or revisional jurisdiction on this Court, and if the
law is valid and the decision with jurisdiction, the protection of Article 265 in not
destroyed. There is only one exception to this, and it lies within extremely narrow
limits. That exception also bears upon jurisdiction, where by a misconstruction the
State Officer or a quasi-judicial tribunal embarks upon an action wholly outside the
pale of the law he is enforcing. If, in those circumstances, his action constitutes a
breach of fundamental rights, than a petition under Article 32 may lie. The cases of
this Court in which interference can be sustained on this ground are many; but as
examples may be seen the following : Amar Singh, case MANU/SC/0013/1955 :
[1955]2SCR303 and Mohanlal Hargovind's case MANU/SC/0082/1955 :
[1955]2SCR509 . The first is not a case of a taxing statute, but the second is.

251. The decision in Kailash Nath's case (A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 79.), with respect, appears
to have unduly widened the last narrow approach by including cases of interpretation
of provisions of law where the error is not apparently one of jurisdiction as within
Article 32. It cited as authority the case of Bengal Immunity
Company MANU/SC/0083/1955 : [1955]2SCR603 , which does not bear out the
wide proposition. The case involved an interpretation of notification to find out
whether an exemption applied to a particular case or not, and no question of want of
jurisdiction, as explained by me, arose there. Kailash Nath's case (A.I.R. 1957 S.C.
79.) does not appear to confine the exercise of powers under Article 32 to cases of
errors of jurisdiction. In my opinion - and I say it respectfully - it must be regarded as
having stated the proposition a little too widely.

252. Whether taxing statutes which have the protection of Article 265 can be
questioned under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g) is a subject, which need not be gone into in
this case. I do not, therefore, express any opinion upon it. Here, the several statutes
and the notification are not challenged as ultra vires. What is claimed is that by a
wrong interpretation of the word 'bidis' and 'tobacco' as used in the notification of
December 14, 1957, an exemption is denied to the petitioner, to which she was
entitled, and this affects her fundamental rights under Article 31(1) and 19(1)(g). This
is not an error of jurisdiction. Whether the Sales Tax Officer's interpretation is right or
the contrary interpretation suggested on behalf of the petitioner is right, is a matter
for decision on the merits of the case. If there is an error, it can be corrected by
resorting to appeals, revisions, references to the High Court and ultimately by a
appeal to this Court. This Court cannot ignore these remedies and embark upon an
examination of the law and the interpretation placed by the authorities, when no
question of jurisdiction is involved. To do so would be to convert the powers under
Article 32 into those of an appeal. In my opinion, the petition under Article 32 is
misconceived in the circumstances of this case. I would, therefore, dismiss it with
costs.

253. As regards the application of the appeal, I am of opinion that the party was
negligent in not prosecuting it. I would therefore, dismiss the application for
restoration but without any order about costs.

N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.

254. This bench has been constituted for deciding the following two questions set out
at the conclusion of what might be termed the order of reference (1) : Is an order of
assessment made by an authority under a taxing statute which is intra vires, open to
challenge a repugnant to Article 19(1)(g) on the sole ground that it is based on a mis-
construction of a provision of the Act or of a notification issued thereunder ? (2) Can
the validity of such an order be questioned in a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution ? Though the matter was not discusses with any elaborateness, both
these questions were answered in the affirmative by this Court in Kailashnath v. The
State of U.P. A.I.R. [1957] S.C. 79. In effect therefore the bench has been constituted
for considering the correctness of decision on these points in Kailashnath' case.

255. Before proceeding to consider the submissions of learned Counsel on either side
it is necessary to point out two matters;

(1) It was agreed before us that in deciding the first question set out
above we need not consider the special features applicable to taxing
legislation and in particular the point as to whether the constitutional
validity of such legislation could be tested with reference to the criteria
laid down by Article 19(1)(f); in other words, the limits to which
Article 19 would be attracted to a law imposing a tax. The discussion in
this judgment therefore proceeds on the basis of there being no
distinction between a law imposing a tax and other laws.

(2) The second matter which I consider it necessary to state at the

outset is that notwithstanding the industry of Counsel which has
enabled them top lace before us quite large number of decisions of this
Court which have been referred to in the judgments of Kapur and
Subba Rao, JJ., in none of them was the point approached with
reference to the matters argued before us. Some of these decisions
proceed on the basis that in the circumstances stated in question No. 1
a fundamental right had been invaded and on that basis afforded to the
petitioner before them the relief sought. Other decisions state that no
fundamental right was involved in the grievance put forward by the
petitioners before them and relief has been refused on that basis. In
none of them was the question discusses on principle as to when alone
a fundamental right would be invaded and in particular as to whether a
breach by a quasi-judicial authority of the provisions of a law which is
otherwise valid, could involve an invasion of a fundamental right. For
this reason I propose to discuss the question on principle and without
reference to the decisions which were placed before us at the hearing. I
feel further justified in doing so because they have all been referred to
in the judgment of Kapur, J., and discussed in detail by Subba Rao, J.

256. I shall now proceed to consider what in my view should be the answer to the first
of the questions propounded for our decision and am ignoring the reference therein to
taxing enactment. Pausing here it might be useful to recall briefly the function of Part
III in the Constitution. The rule of British Constitutional Law and in general of the
Dominion Constitutions framed by the British Parliament might broadly be stated to be
that it asserts the sovereignty of the Legislature in the sense that within the sphere of
its activity in the case of a Federal Constitution and in every sphere in the case of a
unitary one its will was supreme and was the law of the land which the Court were
bound to administer. As Dicey has pointed out, there are no legal limits to the
sovereignty of Parliament. Public opinion, as well as the fear engendered by the
possibility of a popular revolt, might impose practical restraints upon the exercise of
sovereignty but so would be the limitations or restraints dictated by good sense,
justice or a sense of fairplay. But so far as the legal position was concerned, any law
made by Parliament was legal and could be enforced. Our Constitution makers did not
consider that to the conditions of this country such a vesting of power in the
legislatures or in the State would be proper or just or calculated to further the liberty
of the individual which they considered was essential for democratic progress. It was
in these circumstances and with these ideas that they imposed fetters on State action
in Part III entitled "Fundamental Rights". Article 13 laid down that "every law whether
made before or after the Constitution which was inconsistent with the right
guaranteed by the succeeding Articles should, save as otherwise expressly provided,
be invalid to the extent of the repugnancy". And "law" was defined in a comprehensive
manner so as to include not merely laws made by Parliament or the legislatures but
every piece of subsidiary legislation including even notifications. The schemes
therefore of the Constitution makers was to prescribe a code of conduct to which State
action ought to conform if it should pass the test of constitutionality. The rights
included in the eighteen Articles, starting from 14 up to 31, comprehend provisions for
ensuring guarantees against any State action for protecting the right to life, liberty,
and property, to trade and occupation, besides including the right to freedom of
thought, belief and worship. The general scheme of Part III may be stated thus :
Certain of the freedoms are absolute, i.e., subject to on limitations, e.g.,
Article 17, Article 20(1). In respect of certain others the Articles (vide Article 19) set
out the precise freedom guaranteed as well as its content and the qualifications to
which the exercise of that freedom might be subjected by enacted law or action taken
under such law. Having thus enumerated these freedoms and laid down the
limitations, if any to which they could be subjected Article 32 vests in the Supreme
Court the authority and jurisdiction to ensure that the fundamental rights granted by
Part III are not violated, and even the right to move this Court for appropriate relief
for infraction of a fundamental right is itself made a fundamental right which ordinary
legislation may not affect. The purpose of my drawing attention to these features is
two fold : (1) to emphasize the great value which the Constitution-makers attached to
the freedoms guaranteed as the sine qua non of progress and the need which they
considered for marking out a field which was immune from State action, and (2) the
function of Court as a guardian of those rights for the maintenance of individual liberty
enshrined in the Constitution. It was with advertence to this aspect of the matter that
this Court observed in Daryao v. The State of U.P. MANU/SC/0012/1961 :
[1962]1SCR574 :

"There can be no doubt that the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 32(1) is
a very important safeguard for the protection of the fundamental rights of the
citizens, and as a result of the said guarantee this Court has been entrusted with
the solemn task of upholding the fundamental rights of the citizens of this
country. The fundamental rights are intended not only to protect individual's
rights but they are based on high public policy. Liberty of the individual and the
protection of his fundamental rights are the very essence of the democratic way
of life adopted by the Constitution, and it is the privilege and the duty of this
court to uphold those rights. This Court would naturally refuse to circumscribe
them or to curtail them except as provided by the Constitution itself. It is
because of this aspect of the matter that in Romesh Thappar v. The State of
Madras, MANU/SC/0006/1950 : 1950CriLJ1514 in the very first year after the
Constitution came into force, this Court rejected a preliminary objection raised
against the competence of a petition filed under Article 32 on the ground that as
matter of orderly procedure the petitioner should first have resorted to the High
Court under Article 226, and observed that 'this Court is thus constituted the
protector and guarantor of the fundamental rights, and it cannot, consistently
with the responsibility so laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking
protection against infringements of such rights'. Thus the right given to the
citizen to move this Court by a petition under Article 32 and claim an appropriate
writ against the unconstitutional infringement of his fundamental rights itself is a
matter of fundamental right, and in dealing with the objection based on the
applications of the rule of res judicata this aspect to the matter has no doubt to
be borne in mind."
257. Before dealing with the merits of the case it is necessary to mention that the
following positions were conceded on the side of the respondent and, in my opinion,
properly : (1) If the levy was imposed or the burden laid on a citizen (as the petition
before us is concerned with a legislation imposing a tax I am using phraseology
appropriate to such an enactment, but as would be seen, the principle is of wider
application and would cover infringement of liberties other than in relation to property
and by laws other than in relation to taxation) by a statute beyond the competence of
a legislature to enact as not falling within the relevant entry in the legislative list the
action by government or governmental officers would involve the violation of the
freedom guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) - to acquire, hold and dispose of property or
by clause (g) to carry on any trade or business, either the one or the other and in
some cases both and could therefore furnish a right to invoke the jurisdiction of this
Court Article 32 notwithstanding that the particular action impugned was by a quasi-
judicial authority created under such an enactment. The reason for this concession
must obviously be that the authority functioning under such a law could have no legal
basis for its existence and therefore his or its action would be without authority of law.
(2) The legislature may profess to legislate under a specified head of legislative power
which it has, but might in reality be seeking to achieve indirectly what could not be
directly. In such a case also it was conceded that the tax imposed would infringe the
guarantee embodied on Article 19(1)(f) and (g). It would, however, be seen that this
is in reality merely one manner in which there might be lack of legislative power
already dealt with under head (1), (3) The same result would follow and there would
be a breach of a fundamental right if though there was legislative competence to
enact the legislation in the sense that the subject-matter of the law fell within one of
the entries of the Legislative List, appropriate to that legislature, but the legislation
was invalid as violating other fundamental rights of general nature applicable to all
legislation, such as the violation of Article 14, etc. (4) Even in cases where the
enactment is valid judged by the tests in 1 to 3 above, if on a proper construction of
the enactment, the quasi-judicial authority created to function under the Act and to
administer its provisions, acted entirely outside the jurisdiction conferred on him or it
by the enactment, such action, if violative of the fundamental rights, could be
complained of by a petition under Article 32 an this Court would be both competent
and under a duty to afford relief under that Article. Here again, the ratio on which the
concession is based is similar to, though not identical with the basis upon which the
concession as regards action under invalid legislation was made. (5) Where even if the
officer or authority had jurisdiction, still if he had adopted a procedure contrary to
either the mandatory provisions of the statute or to the principles of natural justice,
the resulting order and the imposition of liability effected thereby were conceded to
involve a breach of the fundamental right.

258. These exceptions having been conceded by learned Counsels for the respondent,
it is sufficient if attention is confined to the question, whether a patently incorrect
order passed on a misconstruction of a charging enactment would or would not result
in the violation of a fundamental right and is that the very narrow question which this
bench is called upon to answer.

259. The argument of the learned Attorney-General who appeared for the petitioner,
was short and simple. His submission rested on the correctness of the following steps
:

(1) The Constitution has vested in this Court the power to ensure, when
approached by a petition under Article 32, that fundamental rights were
not violated and accordingly there is a constitutional duty cast upon the
Court to afford relief when so approached in every case where
fundamental rights were violated.

(2) The two matters which a petitioner seeking relief under Article 32 of
the Constitution would have to establish would therefore be : (a) the
existence in him of the fundamental right which he complains has been
infringed, and (5) its violation by State action. If these two conditions
are satisfied the petitioner is entitled as of right to the grant of relief
and the Court would be under a duty to afford him that relief by
passing appropriate orders or directions which would be necessary to
ensure the maintenance of his fundamental right.

(3) There was no dispute that a fundamental right could be invaded by

State action which was legislative in character, or where the complaint
was as regards the action of executive and administrative authorities
created even under valid statutes.

(4) If the above premises which were not in dispute were granted, the
next step was whether the decision of a quasi-judicial authority
constituted under a valid law could violate a guaranteed freedom. A
quasi-judicial authority he urged is as much part of the machinery of
the State as executive and administrative authorities, and its decisions
and orders are as much State action and if the function of Part III of
the Constitution is to protect the citizen against improper State action,
the protection should logically extend to the infraction of rights effected
by such orders of quasi-judicial authorities.

260. The short question for decision may in the circumstances be formulated thus :
Can an action of a quasi-judicial authority functioning under a valid enactment and not
overstepping the limits of its jurisdiction imposed by the Act and not violating the
procedure required by the principles of natural justice but whose decision is patently
erroneous and wholly unjustified on any proper interpretation of the relevant
provision, be complained of as violative of the fundamental rights of a party
prejudicially affected by such mis-interpretation. Taking the handy illustration of a
taxing statute, if by plain misinterpretation of the charging-provision, an assessing
authority levies a tax on transaction A while the statute on its only possible
construction imposes no tax on such a transaction, is any fundamental right of the
party who is subjected to such an improper levy prejudicially affected by such
imposition ?

261. In considering the proper answer to this question it is necessary to exclude one
matter which is apt to cloud the issue and it is this. The statute under which the
quasi-judicial authority functions or makes the decision or order may contain
provisions for enabling the correctness of the decision reached or the order passed
being challenged by an appeal or may provide for a gradation of appeals and further
revisions. The existence of procedures for redressing grievances or correcting errors of
primary or appellate authorities is obviously wholly irrelevant for a consideration of
the question as to whether the order of the authority involves an infringement of
fundamental rights or not. This Court has laid down in large number of cases of which
it is sufficient to refer to : Union of India v. T. R. Varma MANU/SC/0121/1957 :
(1958)IILLJ259SC , The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad
Nooh MANU/SC/0125/1957 : [1958]1SCR595 , and A. V. Venkateswaran, Collector
of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobharj Wadhwani MANU/SC/0158/1961 :
1983ECR2151D(SC) that the existence of an alternative remedy is no legal bar to the
exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. If that
is so in the case of the jurisdiction under Article 226 it must a fortiori be so in the case
of a guaranteed remedy such as is vested in this Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution. Besides it cannot be predicated that there is a violation of a fundamental
right if the party aggrieved has no appeal provided by the statute under which the
authority acts, but that if other statutory remedies are provided there would be no
violation of fundamental right, for the question whether a fundamental right is
violated or not is dependent on the action complained of having an impact on a
guaranteed right, and its existence or non-existence or the action constituting breach
of a fundamental right cannot be determined by the absence or presence of procedure
prescribed by the statute for correcting erroneous orders. The absence of any
provision for redress by way of appeal may have a bearing on the reasonableness of
the law, but it has none on the point now under discussion. Besides, it cannot be that
if the remedies open under the statute are exhausted and the authority vested with
the ultimate authority under the statute has made its decision and there is no longer
any possibility of an objection on the score of an alternative remedy being available,
there would be a violation of a fundamental right with the consequence that this Court
would have jurisdiction, but that if it was approached at an earlier stage there was no
violation of a fundamental right and that it lacks jurisdiction to afford relief under
Article 32, for it must be admitted that in ultimate analysis there is no distinction
between the nature and quality of an order passes by an original as distinct from one
by an appellate or revisional authority - in its consequences vis-a-vis the fundamental
right of the individual affected. It is common ground and that is a matter which has
already been emphasized that if a petitioner made out to the satisfaction of the Court
that he has a fundamental right in respect of the subject-matter and that the same
has been violated by State action, it is imperative on the Court to afford relief to the
petitioner the Court not having any discretion in the matter in those circumstances.
On this basis the only ground upon which the jurisdiction could be denied would be
that the order or decision of the authority which is impugned does not prejudicially
affect the fundamental right of the petitioner, for it cannot be that the order of the
ultimate authority under the statute could involve the violation of a fundamental right
but that the same orders passes by authorities lower down in the rung under the
statute would not involve such violation.

262. Pausing here, one further matter might also be mentioned for being put aside.
This Court has laid down that the principle underlying the rule of res judicata is based
on principles of law of general application and as such would govern also the right to
relief under Article 32. That principle is not involved in the consideration of the point
under discussion, because what is sought to be challenged as violating a fundamental
right is the very order of the authority and we are not concerned with a collateral
attack on an order that had become final as between the parties thereto.

263. Coming back to the point under consideration it was conceded by the learned
Additional Solicitor General who appeared for the respondent that legislative action
might involve an infraction of fundamental rights and that similarly the action of the
executive-authorities might involve such an infraction even when the legislation under
which they acted or purported to act was within legislative competence and within the
constitutional limitations imposed by Part III. His contention, however, was that a
very different state of circumstances arose when the action complained of was by a
quasi-judicial authority. His submission may be summarised in the following terms :-
Where a statute was within legislative competence and does not by its provisions
violate any of the constitutional guarantees in Part III, it follows as a matter of law
that every order of a quasi-judicial authority vested with power under the Act is also
valid and constitutional and that the legality and constitutionality of the statute would
cover every act or order of such an authority if the same was within his or its
jurisdiction and prevent them from the challenge of unconstitutionality. The same
argument was presented in a slightly different form by saying that such a quasi-
judicial authority has as much jurisdiction to decide rightly as to decide wrongly and
that if there was error in such a decision the only remedy of the citizen affected was
by resort to the tribunals set up by the Act for rectifying such errors and that in the
last resort, that is after the entire machinery under the Act was exhausted, the
affected party had a right to approach the High Courts under Article 226 in cases
where the error was of a type which could be brought within the scope of the
remedial-writs provided by that Article.
264. Before examining the correctness of this submission it is necessary to mention
that Mr. Chari who appeared for some interveners supporting the Respondent, made a
submission which if accepted would have far-reaching consequences. His contention
was that the State in Part III against whose action the fundamental rights were
guaranteed was confined to the legislative and the executive branches of State
activity and that the exercise of the judicial power of the State would never
contravene the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III. It would be seen that this
is wholly different from the submission made on behalf of Government by the learned
Additional Solicitor-General and it would be convenient to deal with this larger
question after disposing of the arguments of Mr. Sanyal.

265. The question for consideration is what exactly is meant when it is said that a
statute is valid in the sense of : (a) being legally competent to the legislature to
enact, and (b) being constitutional as not violative of the freedoms guaranteed by Part
III. It is obvious that it can only mean that the statute properly construed is not
legally incompetent or constitutionally invalid. In this connection it is of advantage to
refer to a point made by Mr. Palkhivala who appeared for some of the interveners in
support of the petition. One of his submission was this : Suppose there is an Act for
the levy of sales-tax which is constitutionally valid. On its proper construction it does
not purport to or authorise the imposition of a tax on a sale "in the course of export or
import." If it did so expressly authorise, it is obvious that such a provision in the
enactment would be ultra vires and unconstitutional as violate of the prohibition
contained in Article 286(1)(a). Suppose further that an authority functioning under
such an enactment vested with jurisdiction to assess dealers to sales tax proceeds to
levy a tax and includes in the computation of the assessable turnover not merely
those items which are properly within the legislative competence of the State
Legislature to tax under the head 'Taxes on the sale of goods' but also the turnover in
respect of transactions which are plainly "sales in the course of export or import" and
this it does on a patent misconstruction of the statute, could it be said that the
fundamental right of the dealer guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) and (g) was not
violated by the imposition of the sales tax in such circumstances ? The logic behind
this argument might be stated thus : If the legislature had in terms authorised the
imposition of sales tax on such a transaction it would have been plainly void and
illegal and hence ex-concessis the fundamental right in respect of property as well as
of business under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) would be violated by the levy of the tax and
its collection. How is the position improved if without even the legislature saving so in
express terms an officer who purports to act under the statute himself interprets the
charging provision so as to bring to tax a transaction which it was constitutionally
incompetent for the legislature itself to tax. I find the logic in this reasoning
impossible to controvert, nor did the learned Additional Solicitor-General attempt any
answer to this argument.

266. It appears to be manifest that the fact that an enactment is legislatively

competent and on its proper construction constitutionally valid, i.e., it does not
contain provisions obnoxious to Part III of the Constitution, does not ipso jure
immunise the actions of quasi-judicial authorities set up under the statute from
constituting an invasion of a fundamental right. What the legislature could not in
express terms enact, could not obviously be achieved by the State vesting power in an
authority created by it to so interpret the enactment as to contravene the
Constitution. It might be suggested that such a case would fall within the exception
which it is conceded exists that an act of a quasi-judicial authority which is plainly
beyond its jurisdiction could give rise to the violation of a fundamental right in regard
to which this Court might afford relief if moved under Article 32. In my opinion, this is
not quite a satisfying answer because the suggestion is coupled with the assertion of
the well-worn dictum as regards the jurisdiction of the tribunal to decide wrongly as
much a rightly. The illustration I have given of unconstitutional authorities acting
under valid and constitutional enactments cannot be properly answered unless it be
held that a plain and patent mis-interpretation of the provisions of the enactment
could it self give rise to a plea that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the authority but
that would be stretching the concept of jurisdictional errors beyond what is commonly
understood by that term.

267. Let me next take a case where the mis-interpretation by the quasi-judicial
authority does not involve the levy of a duty beyond the competence of the legislature
enacting the statute. In the type of case now under consideration the quasi-judicial
authority by a plain misinterpretation of, let us say, the charging provision of a taxing
enactment (as that furnishes a handy illustration of the point now under discussion)
levies a tax on a transaction which, under the Constitution, it was competent for the
legislature to levy if it had been so minded. In other words, there are two related
transaction or taxable events - A & B. The taxing statute has selected the transaction
or taxable event A and has imposed a tax upon it, and it alone. The authority vested
with jurisdiction under the Act, however, by a patent misconstruction of the
enactment considers that not merely the transaction or taxable event A but also the
related transaction or taxable event B is within the charging provision and levies a tax
thereon and proceeds to realise it. The problem now under consideration is, could or
could it not be said that in such a case the fundamental right of a citizen who has
been wrongly assessed to tax of in respect of the transaction or taxable event B which
ex-concessis was not intended to be taxed under the enactment has been violated.
With the greatest respect to those who entertain a contort view I consider that the
question can be answered only in one way and that in favour of holding that the
fundamental right of the citizen is prejudicially affected. When once it is conceded that
a citizen cannot be deprived of his property or be restricted in respect of the
enjoyment of his property save by authority of law, it appears to me to be plain that
in the illustration above there is no statutory authority behind the tax liability imposed
upon him by the assessing authority. The Act which imposed the tax and created the
machinery for its assessment, levy and collection is, no doubt, perfectly valid but by
reason of this circumstance it does not follow that the depravation of property
occasioned by the collection of a tax which is not imposed by the charging section
does not involve the violation of a fundamental right merely because the imposition
was by reason of an order of an authority created by the statute, though by a patent
mis-interpretation of the terms of the Act and by wrongly reaching the conclusion that
such a transaction was taxable.

268. I consider that the four concessions made by the respondent which I have set
out earlier, all proceed on the basis that in these cases there is no valid legislative
backing for the action of the authority - executive, administrative or quasi-judicial. I
consider that the reason of that rule would equally apply to cases where the quasi-
judicial authority commits a patent error in construing the enactment - for in such a
case also there would obviously be no legislative backing for the action resulting from
his erroneous decision.

269. There is however one matter to which it is necessary to advert to avoid

misconception, and that concerns the effect of findings reached on questions of fact by
quasi-judicial authorities. Provided there is relevant evidence on which the finding
could rest, the finding would preclude any violation of fundamental right because this
Court, through in the absence of a finding of a duty constituted authority would have
the power and jurisdiction to investigate even disputed facts in an appropriate case,
would however accept findings of fact by duly constituted authorities and proceed to
find out whether on that basis a fundamental right exists and is prejudicially affected
by the action impugned. The distinction which I would, in this context, draw and
emphasise is between a mis-interpretation of a statute by which an authority brings
within the scope of an enactment transactions of activities not within it on any
possible construction of its terms, and erroneous findings on facts by reason of which
the authority considers a transaction as being within the Act even if properly
construed.

270. To sum up the position : (1) If a statute is legally enacted in the sense of being
within legislative competence of the relevant legislature and is constitutional as not
violating any fundamental rights, it does not automatically follow that any action
taken by quasi-judicial authorities created under it cannot violate fundamental rights
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The legislative competence, the existence
of which renders the enactment valid, is confined to action by the authorities created
under it, which on its proper construction could be taken. In an authority constituted
under such a legal and valid enactment over-steps the constitutional limitations on the
legislative power of the State Legislature, the acts of such an authority would be
plainly unconstitutional and the consequences arising out of unconstitutional State
action would necessarily attach to such action. If an "unconstitutional Act" of the State
Legislature would invade fundamental rights the same character and the same
consequence must a fortiori follow when that act is not even by the State Legislature
but by an authority constituted under an enactment passed by it (2) Where State
action without legislative sanction behind it would violate the rights guaranteed under
Part III, the result cannot be different because the State acts through the mechanism
of a quasi-judicial authority which is vested with jurisdiction to interpret the
enactment. The absence of legislative sanction for the imposition of an obligation or
the creation of a liability cannot be filled in by the misinterpretation by an authority
created under the Act.

271. To hold that a patently increased interpretation of a statute by a quasi-judicial

authority by which a liability is imposed on a citizen does not violate his fundamental
rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g) might not have done consequences but for two
circumstances. The first is as regards the difficulty of designating with certainty an
authority as quasi-judicial. The fact is that there is no hard and fast formula for
determining when an authority which is vested with power to act on behalf of the
State falls within category which is termed 'quasi-judicial'. As Prof. Robson stated;
"Lawyers, of course, have often had to decide, in practical cases arising in the courts,
whether a particular activity was of a judicial or an administrative (or 'ministerial')
character, and important consequences have flowed from their decisions. But those
decisions disclose no coherent principle, and the reported cases throw no light on the
question from the wider point of view.......... save to demonstrate, by the very
confusion of thought which they present, the difficulty of arriving at a clear basis of
distinction". The significance of this point stems from the fact that it is a matter of
concession that where the power of the State is vested in an executive or
administrative authority under an enactment which is valid and constitutional and
such an authority does an act which on the proper construction of the relevant statute
is not justified by it, the act may be of such a character as to violate a fundamental
right guaranteed by Part III, i.e., if the impact is in a field which is protected from
State interference, and such a violation could be complained of by a petition to this
Court under Article 32. At the same time it is the contention of the respondent that a
similar act, order or decision by a quasi-judicial functionary which is not warranted by
the terms of the statute, does not give rise to the violation of fundamental rights.

272. It is therefore necessary to examine somewhat closely the dividing line between
an executive authority whose actions may give rise to the violation of a fundamental
right and what is termed a "quasi-judicial" authority whose actions do not have that
effect. To start with, it is obvious that the nature of the act or of the order might be
the same, so that if the same act proceeded from one authority it would have a
particular effect but would have quite a different effect or would not have that effect if
the same act proceeded from a slightly different type of authority also exercising the
power of the State. This Court in Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. v. The Union of
India MANU/SC/0157/1958 : (1961)ILLJ339SC quoted with approval the following
statement of the law as summarised in Halsbury's Law of England (3rd Ed., Vol. 2 at
pp. 53-56) :

".............. An administrative body in ascertaining facts or law may be under a

duty to act judicially notwithstanding that its proceedings have none of the
formalities of, and are not in accordance with the practice of a court of
law.................. A body may be under a duty, however, to act judicially
although there is no form of lis inter parties before it........"
273. and in a further passage from the decision in R. v. Manchester Legal Aid
Committee [1952] 2 Q.B. 413 which this Court extracted it was observed :

"The true view, as it seems to us, it that the duty the act judicially may arise in
widely different circumstances which it would be impossible, and, indeed,
inadvisable, to attempt to define exhaustively."
274. The question therefore whether an authority created under a statute is a quasi-
judicial authority or, in other words, an authority which is bound to act judicially
cannot be laid down by any hard and fast rule but must be gathered from the entire
provisions of the Act read with the purpose for which the power is vested in the
authority as well as the grounds for the creation of such authority. I must however
confess that this is a branch of law in which authorities far from shedding light are in
reality unhelpful - for one gets nowhere if these lay down as they do, that an authority
would be quasi judicial, if (not being a court) it is bound to act judicially and that to
find out when, apart from clear provisions in the statute, it is bound to act judicially -
you are told that it is when it is a quasi-judicial authority. Bearing in mind these
circumstances I find it not possible to accept the contention that if the power of the
State be exercised by an authority which on a conspectus of the statute is deemed to
be quasi-judicial and the exercise of such power prejudicially affects rights of life,
liberty or property which are guaranteed by Part III the same cannot amount to a
violation of a fundamental right, whereas if on a proper construction of the statute
that authority were a mere administrative body but the act remains the same, it
would so involve.

275. Let me next see whether there could be any rational or reasonable basis on
which such a contention could rest. I take it that the reason why quasi-judicial
authorities are suggested as being exceptions to the general rule that State action
which involves a prejudicial result on a person's right to property etc. involves a
violation of fundamental rights is that a quasi-judicial authority is vested with the
jurisdiction to decide and that the conferment of such a jurisdiction carries with it by
necessary implication a right to decide rightly as well as wrongly; in other words, that
it does not outstep the limits of the jurisdiction by a decision which is erroneous. I
consider that it is the case of the transference of a principal to a branch of law or a
situation in which it has no place or relevance. The question for consideration in the
context of a petition under Article 32 is whether there is valid legal sanction behind
the action of the authority, for apart from such a sanction it must be and it is
conceded that there would be a violation of a fundamental right. Besides, if this
proposition is right, then it must rest on the principal that the quasi-judicial authority
is vested with the right to decide. Does it, however, follow that executive action does
not involve a decision or posit a right to decide ? If it is clear law, as must be
conceded, that there is no necessity to have a lis in order to render the body or
authority deciding a matter to be treated as a quasi-judicial authority, then it is very
difficult to conceive of few actions by the executive which do not involve an element of
discretion. No doubt in the case of an administrative or executive body the decision is
not preceded by a hearing involved in the maxim Audi Alteram Partem but this, in my
opinion of the merely the procedure before the decision is reached and is not the
essence of the distinction. Besides, as pointed out by Prof. Robson in 'Justice and
Administrative Law' (a),

"Sometimes the administrative and judicial functions of an office have been so

inextricably blended that it is well-nigh impossible to say which capacity is the
dominant one."

276. In this state of affairs to determine the maintainability of a petition under

Article 32 by proceeding on an investigation as to the nature of the authority which
passed that order when, as I have pointed out earlier, there is no essential differences
in either the nature of the quantum of the injury suffered by the citizen, cannot be
sustained on any proper interpretation either of the Constitution or the principles of
law governing the interpretation of statutes. I would, therefore, hold that the
freedoms guaranteed by Part III may be violated by the action of a quasi-judicial
authority acting within the limits of its jurisdiction under a valid and constitutional
statute where it plainly misinterprets the provisions of the statute under which it
functions or which it is created to administer.

277. As regards the practical effect of accepting the contention of the learned
Additional Solicitor General there is a second matter to which I consider it essential to
draw attention. With a very great increase in governmental activity and the diverse
fields in which it operates owing to the State being a welfare State as contrasted with
a Police-State concerned mainly with the maintenance of law and order, there has
necessarily been a great proliferation of governmental departments with the attendant
creation of several authorities which have to pass decisions in spheres affecting the
citizen at manifold points. It is therefore true to say that in a modern welfare State
administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial authority are vastly more numerous
and if I may add, more important and more vital than even the normally constituted
Courts. In such a situation to hold that fundamental rights would not be involved by
the activities of these various authorities which are increasing in number day by day
would, be in my opinion, to deny to the citizen the guarantee of effective relief which
Article 32 was designed to ensure in the great majority of cases. In such a situation to
assert at one breath the prime importance and significance of the function of this
Court as a protector and guarantor of fundamental rights, and at the same time to
hold that these numerous statutory authorities which are created to administer the
law cannot invade those rights would be to render this assertion and this guarantee of
relief mostly empty of meaning. Though if the words of the Constitution were explicit,
considerations such as there would be of no avail, yet even it the matter were
ambiguous I am clearly of the opinion that the rejection of the broad contention raised
on behalf of the respondent is justified as needed to given effect to the intentions of
the framers of the Constitution. But as I have pointed out already, on no logical basis
could it be held that where an act or order of a quasi-judicial authority lacks legislative
backing, it cannot still impinge on a person's fundamental right and where an order
suffers from patent error, it is no legislative sanction behind it.

278. It now remains to consider the point urged by Mr. Chari that "State" action which
involves the violation of a fundamental right does not include that resulting from what
be termed "the judicial authority of the State". The argument put forward in support
of this proposition was rested in most part, if not wholly, on the terms of Article 12 of
the Constitution and the definition of the expression "State" contained in it.
Article 12 enacts :

"In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, 'the State' includes the
Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of
each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India
or under the control of the Government of India."
279. It was pointed out that the "State" whose action might involve the violation of
fundamental rights or rather was against whom the citizen had been granted a
guarantee of certain rights under this Part was defined to include the "Government"
and "Parliament" of the Union and of the States, and the local authorities, did not
name the "Judicial power of the State" as within it. If learned Counsel is right in this
submission that the State in Part III impliedly excludes judicial and quasi-judicial
authorities by reason of the absence of specific mention the further submission that by
any of the actions of such authorities fundamental rights could not be violated would
appear to be made out and it has to be added that if this contention is right some of
the concessions made by Mr. Sanyal would be unjustified.

280. There are several considerations to which I shall immediately advert which
conclusively negative the correctness of the inference to be drawn from judicial and
quasi-judicial authorities not being specifically named in Article 12(1) In the first
place, it has to be pointed out that the definition is only inclusive, which itself is apt to
indicate that besides the Government and the Legislature there might be other
instrumentalities of State action which might be comprehended within the expression
"State". That this expression "includes" is used in this sense and not in that in which it
is very occasionally used as meaning "means and includes" could be gathered not
merely from other provisions of Part III but also from Article 12 itself.
Article 20(1) would admittedly refer to a limitation imposed upon the judicial power of
the State and is obviously addressed also, if not wholly, to judicial authorities. Mr.
Chari however sought to get over the implication arising from Article 20(1) by
suggesting that the definition in Article 12 which excluded judicial and quasi-judicial
authorities from within the purview of the expression "State" should be understood as
applying only subject to express provision to the contrary. I feel wholly unable to
accept the method suggested of reconciling the presence of Article 20(1) with the
interpretation of Article 12 as excluding judicial and quasi-judicial authorities. No
doubt, the definition in Article 12 starts with the words "unless the context otherwise
requires", that expression however could serve to cut down even further the reach of
the definition and cannot serve to expand it beyond the executive and legislative fields
of State action if the word "includes" were understood as "means and includes" which
is the contention urged by learned Counsel. Again, Article 12 winds up the list of
authorities falling within the definition by referring to "other authorities" within the
territory of India which cannot, obviously be read as ejusdem generis with either the
Government and the Legislatures or local authorities. The words are of wide amplitude
and capable of comprehending every authority created under a statute and
functioning within the territory of India. There is no characterisation of the nature of
the "authority" in this residuary clause and consequently it must include every type of
authority set up under a statue for the purpose of administering laws enacted by the
Parliament or by the State including those vested with the duty to make decisions in
order to implement those laws (2). Among the reliefs which on the terms of
Article 32 this Court might afford to persons approaching it complaining of the
violation of the fundamental right is the issue of a writ of certiorari specifically
enumerated in that Article. It is common ground that that writ is available for issue
only against judicial or quasi-judicial authorities and it would normally follow that
quasi-judicial authorities could equally with other instruments of State action violate
fundamental rights which could be redressed by the issue of this type of writ. (3) The
theory propounded by learned Counsel is based on what might be termed the rigid
doctrine of the separation of powers which is not any feature of our Constitution as
has bean repeatedly laid down by this Court. (4) Even on the words of Article 12 as
they stand that construction suggested by learned Counsel has to be rejected. The
article refers to the government (of Union and of the States) as within the definition of
a "State". It is however admitted that both the Government of the Union as well as of
the State, function as quasi-judicial authorities under various statutory enactments.
The question would at once arise whether when the "government" exercise such
powers it is deemed to be a "government" falling within the definition of "State" or
should be classified as a judicial authority wielding 'the judicial power of the State" so
as to be outside the definition, so that its decisions and orders do not give rise to a
violation of a fundamental right. Article 12 on any reasonable construction cannot
permit the dissection of "government" for the purpose of discovering the nature or the
quality of the powers exercised by it, into the three fields of executive pure and
simple, judicial and legislative for the purpose of a fresh reclassification into certain
categories. When government exercises any power, be it executive pure and simple,
or quasi-judicial under a statute or quasi-legislative in say framing subordinate
legislation, it does so as "government" and no further sub-division of it is possible
except for the purposes merely of academic study or for determining the nature of the
relief which might be had by persons affected by its activities in any particular field.
Similarly, Parliament is vested with a quasi-judicial power to punish for contempt
which itself if by reason of such power belonging to the Parliament of the United
Kingdom and this if anything is an indication that the constitution does not recognise
any doctrine of the separation of powers. In other words, the reference to the
Government and the Legislature in the definition is a reference to them as institutions
known by that name and is not with a view to describe their particular functions in the
body politic.

(5) That the reference to the Government and the Legislatures is to them as
institutions and is not to be understood a reference to their functions, viz., to bodies
performing executive and legislative functions is perhaps forcefully brought out by the
inclusion of "Local authorities" in the definition of "State". It is obvious that municipal
and local Board authorities going under various descriptions in the several State would
be comprehended within that term. Now municipal councils exercise, as is well known,
legislative, executive as well as quasi-judicial functions. They frame Rules and bye-
laws which are subordinate legislation and would fall within the description of "laws"
as defined by Article 13, Municipal Councils are vested with administrative functions
and they also exercise quasi-judicial functions when assessing taxes, hearing taxation
appeals, to mention only a small fraction of the quasi-judicial power which they
possess and exercise in the discharge of their functions as the local administration. If
the "local authority" as a whole is a "State" within the definition there is no canon of
construction by which any part of the action of that authority could be designated as
not falling within State action for the purpose of giving rise to violation of a
fundamental right. (6) There is only one other matter which need be referred to in this
connection. Both this Court, as well as the High Court have vested in them the power
to make rules, and it cannot be disputed that such rules would be "laws" within the
definition of the expression in Article 13. If so, it is manifest that such rules might
violate the fundamental rights, i.e., their validity would depend inter alia on their
passing the test of permissible legislation under Part III. This would directly contradict
any argument that Courts and quasi-judicial authorities are outside the definition of
State in Article 12.

281. In the face of these deductions following from the Constitutions itself, I find it
wholly impossible to accede to the submission that what is termed as judicial power of
the State which, it is submitted, would include quasi-judicial authorities created under
statutes do not fall within the definition of the "State" and that their actions therefore
are not to be deemed "State" action against which the Constitution has provided the
rights guaranteed under Part III.

282. I would therefore answer the question referred to the Bench by saying that the
action of quasi-judicial authority could violate a fundamental right if on a plain mis-
construction of the statute or a patent misinterpretation of its provisions such an
authority affects any rights guaranteed under Part III. This would be in addition to the
three broad categories of cases in regard to which it was conceded that there could be
a violation of fundamental rights : (1) where the statute under which it functions was
itself invalid or unconstitutional, (2) where the authority exceeds the jurisdiction
conferred on it by the Act, and (3) where the authority though functioning under
statute, contravenes mandatory procedure prescribed in the statue or violates the
principles of natural justice and passes an order or makes a direction affecting a
person's rights of property etc.

283. Before concluding it is necessary to advert to one matter which was just touched
on in the course of the arguments as one which might be reserved for consideration
when it actually arose, and this related to the question whether the decision or order
of a regular ordinary Court of law as distinguished from a tribunal or quasi-judicial
authority constituted or created under particular statutes could be complained of as
violating a fundamental right. It is a salutary principle that this Court should not
pronounce on points which are not involved in the questions raised before it and that
is the reason why I am not dealing with it in any fullness and am certainly not
expressing any decided opinion on it. Without doing either however, I consider it
proper to make these observations. There is not any substantial identity between a
Court of law adjudicating on the rights of parties in the lis before it an designed as the
High Courts and this Court are to investigate inter alia whether any fundamental right
are infringed and vested with power to protect them, and quasi-judicial authorities
which are created under particular statutes and with a view to implement and
administer their provisions. I shall be content to leave the topic at this.

284. This brings me to the question as to whether there has been a patent
misinterpretation of the statute, as I have described earlier, and whether as a result
the petitioner has established a violation of a fundamental right. Section 4(1) of the
U.P. Sales Tax Act enacted :

"No tax shall be payable on :

(a) the sale of water, milk............... and on any other goods

which the State Government may, by notification in the official
gazette, exempt.

(b) the sale of any goods by the All India Spinner - Association
................. or such other person or class of persons as the
State Government may, from time to time, exempt on such
conditions ........ as may be specified by notification in the official
gazette."

285. Pursuant of the powers conferred by a section 4(1)(b) the Government of Uttar
Pradesh published a notification dated December 14, 1957 and it is the proper
interpretation of this notification that forms the central point of the merits of this
petition. The notification read :

"........ In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section

(1) of section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act 1948 as amended up to date,
the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to order that no tax shall be
payable under the aforesaid Act with effect from the 14th of December
1957 by the dealers in respect of the following classes of goods :

Provided that the Additional Central-Excise Duties leviable

thereon from the closing of business on December 13, 1957
have paid on such goods and that the dealers there of furnish
proof to the satisfaction of the assessing authority that such
duties have been paid :

(1) ...............................................................
(2) ...............................................................

(3) Cigars, cigarettes, biris and tobacco, that is to say any

form tobacco, whether cured or uncured and whether
manufactured or not and includes the leaf, stalks and
stems of the tobacco plant but does not include any part
of a tobacco plant while still attached to the earth."

286. The petitioners are manufacturers of hand-made biris and there was no duty of
excise payable on them under the relevant entry in the Central Excise Act, nor was
there any imposition of any fresh duty on biris so manufactured under Central Act 58
of 1957 whose object was to provide for the levy and collection of "additional duties
interalia on tobacco and tobacco products and for the distribution of a part of the net
proceeds thereof among the States in place of the sales tax which was to be forborne
by the States on those goods. Briefly stated, the contention urged on behalf of the
petitioner was that in the proviso to the notification dated December 14, 1957, the
expression have been paid on such goods" applied only to those cases where an
additional duty was payable and was framed to deny the benefit of the exemption to
parties who being liable to pay such duty failed to pay the same. Where, however, no
duty, was payable at all, no question of the levy of duty arose and the proviso was
inapplicable. On the other hand, the Sales Tax Officer construed the notification with
the aid of the proviso as meaning that the exemption from payment of sales tax was
granted only in those cases where an additional duty having become payable the
same had been paid i.e. the State was intended to be deprived of the right to levy
Sales was only when it obtained some benefit from the additional excise duty which
was distributed to it. The question that arises is not whether the construction
contended for by the petitioner is the correct or the preferable one, but whether that
adopted by the Sales Tax Officer was not one which it was possible for one reasonably
to take of the provision. If not withstanding that the one is preferable to the other or
that a Court of construction would more readily accede to the one rather than to the
other, the officer had adopted a construction which it was possible to take, could it be
said that there was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the issue of
a writ of certiorari. Judged from the point of view I am inclined to hold that where it is
possible reasonably to uphold the construction adopted by an inferior tribunal it would
be a case of mere error of law and not a patent error, or an error apparent on the face
of the record which should justify the issue of a writ of certiorari. In this view I would
dismiss the writ petition.

287. As regards the application to restore the appeal to the file, I do not consider that
the request ought to be allowed and for two reasons : Firstly, the applicant having
voluntarily withdrawn the appeal I do not see any justification for acceding to his
present request. Secondly, if as I have held, the error in the order of the officer was
not such as to justify the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the same the judgment
of the High Court under Article 226 was correct and the petitioner would not gain any
advantage by the revival of the appeal. In the circumstances I would dismiss the
petition for restoration of the appeal.

J.R. Mudholkar, J.

288. The question which arises for consideration in this petition under Article 32(1) of
the Constitution is whether a right guaranteed by Part III such as a right to carry on
trade or business is breached because a taxing authority, though acting under a law
which is inter vires and following a procedure which is constitutionally as well as
legally permissible has erroneously assessed and levied a tax on a trade or business.
Unless we hold that an erroneous assessment, be it due to misconstruction of law or
misappreciation of facts, constitutes an invasion of a right guaranteed by Part III, the
remedy provided by Article 32(1) will not be available. The substance of the
petitioner's contention is that when the construction placed by a taxing authority upon
a provision of law is wrong the levy of tax is one which is not authorised by law and
thus the assessee's right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is infringed.

289. What had do be construed by the Sales Tax Officer in the case before us was not
a statutory provision but a notification issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on
December 14, 1957 under section 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U.P.
Act XV of 1948). The aforesaid provision of the Sales Tax Act and the notification have
been set out in the judgments of some of my learned brethren and need not be set
out over again in this judgment. Upon the construction placed by him on this
notification the Sales Tax Officer held the petitioner liable to pay sales tax on the
turnover of sales of bidis for the period between April 1, 1958 and June 20, 1958. The
petitioner's contention before the Sales Tax Officer was that bidis were exempted from
sales tax by the notification in question. The plea was negatived by the Sales Tax
Officer. The petitioner having unsuccessfully challenged the assessment before the
sales tax authorities moved the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The petition was dismissed. Having failed them the petitioner sought and
obtained a certificate from the High Court to the effect that the case is fit for appeal
before this Court. Thereafter the petitioner moved the present petition before this
Court but took no steps to bring the appeal before this Court. That appeal was
thereupon dismissed for non-prosecution on February 20, 1961. I may incidentally
mention here that the petitioner has now applied for restoration of the appeal. But
that has nothing to do with the point which I have referred to earlier.

290. This petition went up before a constitution bench of this Court. At the hearing
reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision of this Court in Kailash
Nath v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0136/1957 : AIR1957SC790 in which by accepting
an interpretation on a provision of the Sales Tax Act different from that put upon it by
the sales tax authorities this Court held that the petitioner before it was being
deprived of his property without the authority of law. The correctness of the decision
was challenged on behalf of the respondent State on the basis of various decisions,
including some of this Court, an in view of the importance of the question involved the
case was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for constituting a large Bench.
In the referring Order the following two questions were formulated by the learned
Judges who made the reference :

(1) Is an order of assessment made by an authority under a taxing

statute which is intra vires, open to challenge as repugnant to Article
19(1)(g) on the sole ground that it is based on a misconstruction of a
provision of the Act or of a notification issued thereunder ?

(2) Can the validity of such an order be questioned in petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution ?

291. I have not discussed the decisions of this Court as they have been considered
fully in the judgments of my brethren but have approached the questions with
reference to the principles of law applicable to the questions placed before us.

292. The two questions are really one : 'Can an erroneous order of assessment by a
taxing authority result in a breach of a right to carry on trade or business so as to
entitle the person complaining of the breach to approach this Court under Article 32 ?
The remedy provided by this Article - which is itself a fundamental right - is restricted
to the enforcement of fundamental rights and does not extend to other rights such as
a right to have a wrong order quashed. On the one hand it was contended at one
stage, on the authority of the-decisions in Ramjilal v. Income-Tax Officer,
Mohindargarh MANU/SC/0057/1951 : [1951]19ITR174(SC) and Laxmanappa
Hanumantappa Jamkhandi v. The Union of India MANU/SC/0033/1954 :
[1954]26ITR754(SC) that a fundamental right will not be breached if the
requirements of Article 265 are satisfied, that is to say, the tax is assessed under
authority of law. On the other hand it is said, in substance, that an erroneous order of
a taxing authority is an unreasonable restriction on a person's right to carry on trade
or business and Article 32 entitles that person to redress from this Court. It has,
however, been made clear in several decisions of this Court that a law under
Article 265 must not violate a right guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. [See
Mohommad Yasin v. The Town Area Committee, Jalalabad MANU/SC/0012/1952 :
[1952]1SCR572 ; State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd. MANU/SC/0095/1953
: [1953]4SCR1069 ; Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai v. A. V. Viswanatha
Sastri MANU/SC/0035/1954 : [1954]26ITR713(SC) ; Ch. Tika Ramji v. The State of
Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0008/1956 : [1956]1SCR393 ; Balaji v. Income Tax
Officer, Special Investigation Circle, MANU/SC/0086/1961 : [1961]43ITR393(SC) .
If it violates any of the guaranteed rights, recourse to the provisions of Article 32 is
available to the aggrieved person.

293. Fundamental rights enumerated in Article 19(1) are however, liable to be

restricted by laws permissible under clauses 2 to 6 and, therefore, we must first
consider the limits within which a person can claim to assert and exercise his
fundamental right. We must also bear in mind the nature of a quasi-judicial tribunal
and the legal efficacy of its decisions.

294. The right to carry on trade, business etc., with which we are concerned here falls
under clause (1)(g) and can be restricted by a law permissible by clause 6. This right
is further subject to the sovereign power of the State to levy a tax. For, the right to
levy a tax is essential for the support of the State and in exercise thereof the State
can impose a tax on a trade or business. Article 265 if the Constitution provides that
the imposition must be under the authority of a law. Further our Constitution being,
broadly speaking, federal, the right to levy taxes has been divided between the Union
and the States and the fields in which the Union and the States can respectively levy
taxes have been demarcated in the lists contained in the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution. Despite the demarcation, each is supreme in its own field in the matter
of levying taxes. There is yet another limitation on the power of the State to make
laws including a law levying a tax and that is placed by clause (2) of Article 13 of the
Constitution which runs thus :

"The State shall not makes any law which takes away or abridges the rights
conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to
the extent of the contravention, be void."
295. A per-constitution law like the U.P. Sales Tax Act with which we are concerned
here must also be consistent with Article 13(1) which runs thus :

"All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement
of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this
Part, shall, to the extent of such in consistency, be void."
296. Such a law or any provision thereof the extent of its inconsistency with the
provisions of Part III of the Constitution will be void. The law must further not be
violative of any other constitutional provision as for example Article 276(2), Article
286, Article 301 etc. The law must also have been enacted after complying with all the
requirements of the Constitution and where it is subordinate legislation, those of other
relevant laws.

297. If a law imposing a tax is in contravention of any of the rights conferred by Part
III of the Constitution the law would be void and a person aggrieved would be entitled
to move this Court under Article 32 on the ground that one of his fundamental rights
has been infringed. Similarly, if a law is beyond the competence of the legislature
which enacted in or if it contravenes any provision of the Constitution such as
Article 276 or Article 286 it would be an invalid law as being ultra vires the
Constitution and the tax levied thereunder would also be one which is not authorised
by law and the assessee can move this Court under Article 32 on the ground that his
right under Article 19(1)(g) is breached. Similarly, if a tax is levied by an authority not
empowered by law to do so, or by a competent authority in violation of the procedure
permitted by law or in violation of the principles of natural justice, the levy would be
unauthorised and the decision under which it was made would be a nullity. In such a
case also the assessee can move this Court under Article 32. All this is accepted
before us on behalf of the State.

298. But where a tax is levied by a competent legislature, after due compliance with
all the requirements relating to the making of laws and when it is subordinate
legislation, the requirements of other relevant laws, and is also not in violation of any
provision of the Constitution it will operate as a reasonable restriction upon the right
of a person to carry on his trade, business etc. Though a person's right to carry on a
trade or business is a fundamental right it is thus subject to the aforesaid limitations.
The quantum of the right left to an individual to carry on his trade or business will be
that which is left after a valid restriction is placed upon it by the State under clause
(6) of Article 19. His actual right would be to carry on business burdened with the
aforesaid restriction. Where, as here, the restriction is placed on a dealer and takes
the form of liability to pay a tax on the turnover of sales on certain commodities by
him then he can carry on his trade subject to his liability to pay the tax as assessed
from time to time. It is this which is the nett content of his right to carry on trade,
ignoring for the moment restrictions laid upon it by other competent laws made by the
State. After a valid restriction is placed upon a fundamental right what will be
enforceable under Article 32 would be not the unrestricted right but the restricted
right.

299. It was not disputed before us that where a quasi-judicial tribunal constituted
under the Act whereunder a tax is levied, by an erroneous construction of the
Constitution or of that Act holds the tax to be within the competence of the State
legislature or as not contravening a provision of the Constitution, its decision will still
be deemed to affect a fundamental right of the person upon whom a tax is levied in
pursuance of that decision. This position was rightly not disputed before us because,
in the premises, the Act would itself be void and consequently no legal liability can
arise by virtue of the quasi-judicial tribunal constituted under it. A restriction imposed
by a void law being illegal falls outside clause (6) of Article 19.

300. Now when a State wants to impose a tax on a trade or business it must
necessarily provide for the machinery for assessing and collecting it. The assessment
and collection of a tax cannot be arbitrary and, therefore, the State must confer upon
the taxing authority the power and impose upon it the duty to act judicially. Absence
of such a provision will make the law bad as being violative of Article 19(1)(g) : K. T.
Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala MANU/SC/0042/1960 : [1961]3SCR77 .

301. The Sales Tax Act in force in Uttar Pradesh is a law of this kind. It not only
imposes a tax on the sale of certain commodities but also provides for the assessment
of the tax as well as for appeals, revisions etc., from the orders of assessment. It is a
law as contemplated by Article 265 and it is not contended that any of its provisions
infringe the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g).

302. Being an instrumentality of the State, like others charged with administrative
duties, a taxing authority is not a court of law, as that expression is understood. All
the same it has, in the discharge of its functions, to act judicially. Since, however, it is
a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and since also it performs other functions which are
administrative in character it is not a purely judicial but only a quasi-judicial tribunal.
303.The qualification 'quasi', however, would not make its duty to act judicially less
imperative. In its role as an assessing authority is if incumbent upon it to ascertain
facts and apply the taxing law to those facts. It must apply it mind to the relevant
provisions of the law and to the facts of each case and arrive at its findings. It is,
therefore, inevitable that the authority should have the power to construe the facts as
well as the laws. In other words, it must have jurisdiction to do those things or else it
decisions can never have any value or binding force.

304. A taxing authority which has the power to make a decision on matters falling
within the purview of the law under which it is functioning is undoubtedly under an
obligation to arrive at a right decision. But the liability of a tribunal to err is an
accepted phenomenon. The binding force of a decision which is arrived at by a taxing
authority acting within the limits of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law cannot be
made dependent upon the question whether its decision is correct or erroneous. For,
that would create an impossible situation. therefore, though erroneous, its decision
must bind the assessee. Further, if the taxing law is a valid restriction the liability to
be bound by the decision of the taxing authority is a burden imposed upon a person's
right to carry on trade or business. This burden is not lessened or lifted merely
because the decision proceeds upon a misconstruction of a provision of the law which
the taxing authority has to construe. therefore, it makes no difference whether the
decision is right or wrong so long as the error does not pertain to jurisdiction.

305. The U.P. Act empowers the sales tax officer to make the assessment, to
ascertain the necessary facts for holding whether or not a person is liable to pay tax
and it he is liable, to determine the turnover of his sales. Since sales tax is imposed
only on certain commodities and tax at different rates is since sales chargeable an
different commodities the power of the Sales Tax Officer to makes an assessment
carries with it the power to determine whether the sales of particular commodities
effected by the assessee fall within the ambit of the Act or not and if they do, to
determine the rate or rates of tax chargeable in respect of sales of different
commodities. In regard to all these matters he has to follow the procedure prescribed
by the Act. If he finds upon a construction of the Act and of the rules and notifications
issued thereunder that a certain commodity is liable to pay a tax then so long as the
transaction is one upon which the State legislature could impose a tax and the
commodity is one on which the State legislature could impose a tax it is difficult to see
how the decision arrived at by the Sales Tax Officer can be said to be otherwise than
within his jurisdiction even though he may have made an error in coming to a
particular conclusion. If he comes to a wrong conclusion would he, in demanding the
tax on the basis of such conclusion, be making an unlawful demand ? The conclusion
may be obviously or palpably wrong but so long as it is not shown to be dishonest
would his decision to void ? Of course, if by placing an erroneous construction on the
law he holds, say that a transaction which is hit by Article 286 of the Constitution is
one which can be taken into consideration for the purposes of assessing the tax or if
he holds that a commodity upon which the State legislature could not impose a tax is
taxable under the Act he would clearly have acted beyond his jurisdiction and his
assessment with respect to such a transaction or a commodity would be void. With
respect to such assessment the assessee will of course have the right to move this
Court under Article 32. But where such is not the case and the error of the Sales Tax
Officer lay only in holding that a tax is payable on a certain commodity, as in this case
bidis, even though bidis may have been exempted from such tax by a notification
made by the Government, how could he be said to have acted without jurisdiction ?

306. It was, however, contended that where the erroneous construction by the Sales
Tax Officer results in the levy of a tax for which there is no authority in law the
fundamental right to carry on trade or business will necessarily be breached. The
answer to this contention is that since he has the power to construe the law and
decide whether particular transaction or commodity is taxable his decision though
erroneous must be regarded as one authorised by law and consequently the tax levied
thereunder held to be one authorised by law. For, what is authorised by law is that
which the appropriate authority upon consideration and construction of the law holds
to be within the law.

307. It was said that the answer would take in even erroneous decisions as to
commodities and transactions with respect to which the State legislature is
incompetent to make laws. I have no doubt that it would not, because the power of
the Sales Tax Officer to levy a tax cannot extend beyond that of the State legislature.

308. The Sales Tax Officer functioning under the Act in question has, clearly the power
to summon witnesses, call documents, record evidence and so on. The Act imposes a
duty on him to give an opportunity to the person sought to be assessed to be heard.
His decision upon matters falling within the scope of the laws governing the
proceedings before him, unless revised or modified by a tribunal or authority or a
court to which he is subordinate must, therefore, be regarded as having as much
validity as that of a court of law in the exercise of its judicial power subject, of course,
to the limitations stated earlier. The decision may be erroneous. It may proceed upon
a blatant or obvious error on the face of the record. Even so, it cannot be regarded as
'non est' or void or a mere nullity. If that is the correct legal position, what difference
would it make if as a result of an erroneous decision arrived at by a Sales Tax Officer
resulting from a misconstruction of a notification under the Sales Tax Act, a person is
held liable to pay tax upon sales of a commodity which, upon a proper construction,
would appear to be exempted from tax by the law like the notification in question ?
Just as a person cannot complain of a breach of his fundamental right to carry on
trade or business because an erroneous decision of a court of law renders him liable to
pay a sum of money, so too he cannot complain against an equally erroneous decision
of a Sales Tax Officer. But that does not mean that an erroneous decision can never
be challenged before this Court. After exhausting the remedies provided by the taxing
statute the aggrieved party can challenge it directly under Article 136 or indirectly by
first moving the High Court under Article 226 or 227 and then coming up in appeal
against the decision of the High Court.

309. Though this Court is the guardian of all fundamental rights the Constitution has
not taken away the right of the ordinary courts of quasi-judicial tribunals
administering a variety of laws to exercise their existing jurisdiction and to determine
matters falling within their purview. If by reason of the decision of a tribunal a person,
for instance, loses his right to occupy a house, or has to pay a tax, that decision
cannot be thrown to the winds and a complaint made to this Court that a fundamental
right has been violated. The decision being one made in exercise of a judicial power
and in performance of a duty to make it is a valid adjudication though as a result of it
a person may not be able to occupy his house or may have to pay a tax. The decision
may be a right one or wrong one. If it is not a nullity when it is right I fail to see how
it can be said to be a nullity because it is erroneous, so long of course, as the law is a
good law, the decision is of an authority competent to act under the law, the
procedure followed by it is as prescribed by the law and the error does not pertain to
jurisdiction. The error may lie in the construction placed upon a statue by the tribunal.
If it is that and no more, such erroneous construction cannot render the action taken
thereunder arbitrary or unauthorised. The error has to be corrected in the manner
permitted by law or the Constitution and until it is so corrected it would not be open to
the party to say that its fundamental right is violated.

310. Looking at the matter from the aspect of the nature of the right which is capable
of being enforced under Article 32 the same conclusion is reached. Thus when the
provisions of a taxing law entitle a taxing authority to assess and levy a tax and for
these purposes to decide certain matters judicially and give binding effect to its
decision and none of the provisions of that law are void under Article 13 or otherwise
invalid the right enforceable under Article 32 would be the right to carry on business
subject to the payment of tax as assessed by the taxing authority and not a right to
carry on trade or business free from that liability. It makes no difference even if the
assessment of the tax is based upon an erroneous construction of the taxing law
inasmuch as the right to have a correct determination of the tax is not part of the
fundamental right to carry on business but flows only from the taxing law. It would
follow therefore that in such a case nothing is left for being enforced under
Article 32 when the taxing authority does no more than assess and levy a tax after
determining it.

311. One more point needs to be dealt with. It was said that a quasi-judicial tribunal
being an instrumentality of the State its action is State action and so it will be under
the same disabilities as the State to do a thing which is incompetent or impermissible
for the State to do. It is also said that what a State cannot do directly it cannot do
indirectly. In so far as the incompetency of the State arises out a constitutional
prohibition or lack of legal authority due to any reason whatsoever, it will attach itself
to the action of the quasi-judicial tribunal purporting to act as the instrumentality of
the State. Where, in such a case, any fundamental right of a person is violated by the
action of the quasi-judicial tribunal that person is entitled to treat the action as
arbitrary or a nullity and come up to this court under Article 32 because the action
would be one which is not authorised by law. But while an erroneous action of the
State in exercise of its administrative functions can be challenged directly under
Article 32 if it affects a person's fundamental right on the ground that it is not
authorised by law the action of the tribunal pursuant to an erroneous order will not be
open to challenge for the reason that its action arises out of the exercise of a judicial
power and is thus authorised by law, State action though it be. When, under the
provisions of a law the State exercises judicial power, as for instance, by entertaining
an appeal or revision or assessing or levying a tax it acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal
and its decision even though erroneous will not be a nullity and cannot be ignored. It
can be corrected only under Article 226 or Article 227 by the High Court or under
Article 136 by this Court inasmuch as the State would then be acting as a quasi-
judicial tribunal.

312. To summarise, my conclusions are these :

1. The question of enforcement of a fundamental right will arise if a tax

is assessed under a law which is (a) void under Article 13 or (b) is ultra
vires the Constitution or (c) where it is subordinate legislation, it is
ultra vires the law under which it is made or inconsistent with any other
law in force.

2. A similar question will also arise if the tax is assessed and/or levied
by an authority (a) other than the one empowered to do so under the
taxing law or (b) in violation of the procedure prescribed by the law or
(c) in colourable exercise of the powers conferred by the law.

3. No fundamental right is breached and consequently no question of

enforcing a fundamental right arises where a tax is assessed and levied
bona fide by a competent authority under a valid law by following the
procedure laid done by that law, even though it be based upon an
erroneous construction of the law except when by reason of the
construction placed upon the law a tax is assessed and levied which is
beyond the competence of the legislature or is violative of the
provisions of Part III or of any other provisions of the Constitution.
4. A mere misconstruction of a provision of law does not render the
decision of a quasi-judicial tribunal void (as being beyond its
jurisdiction). It is a good and valid decision in law until and unless it is
corrected in the appropriate manner. So long as that decision stands,
despite its being erroneous, it must be regarding as one authorised by
law and where, under such a decision a person is held liable to pay a
tax that person cannot treat the decision as a nullity and contend that
what is demanded of him is something which is not authorised by law.
The position would be the same even though upon a proper
construction, the law under which the decision was given did not
authorise such a levy.

313. My answer to each of the two questions is in the negative.

BY COURT : In accordance with the judgments of the majority, Writ Petition No 79 of

1959 is dismissed, but the parties will bear their own costs C.M.P. No. 1349 of 1961
for restoration of civil Appeal No. 572 of 1960 is also dismissed, but the parties will
bear their own costs.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.