Introduction:
With the evolution of human interactions and need to share the resources with one another, the term trade came into existence. Commerce and intercourse have come into being after increasing scope of the trade. Trade has been integral to human beings. Thus to fulfill this essential aspect of life, freedom for such activities are important. Freedom of trade and commerce forms crucial place in different constitutions of the world, emerging as pivotal legal right for the nation as well as citizens. Freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse dwells in Part 13 of the Indian Constitution from Article 301 to 307.
MEANING – TRADE, COMMERCE AND INTERCOURSE
The term “trade” means buying and selling of goods between two or more parties for making profit. It also includes other activities which help in the exchange of goods between the parties such as the merchandise, the interchange of commodities, fixation of price, hour, place, date and manner, contracts etc. “Trade” means any trade, business, industry, profession or occupation relating to the production, supply, distribution, storage or control of goods; and includes the provision of any services.[1] The essential element of trade is profit between the parties i.e. buyer and seller; there must be transmission of goods for the profitable activities only. This ingredient of profit makes this term distinct from other relative terms.
The term “commerce” is used synonymously so many times with the term trade; but the thin line of difference between the terms is scope. The scope of trade centers on the process of buying and selling; only which also includes other activities as discussed earlier. But scope of commerce is wider as it not only includes production and distribution; but other economic, legal, political, technological activities. For instance, advertising the product, insurance, warehousing, transporting, etc. completes the whole process of exchange; not only between buyer and seller but between producer and consumer. Moreover, commerce is not merely profit making activity. E-commerce is recent trend which covers all the activities that are enveloped by traditional form of commerce. Thus the scope of commerce is wider than trade in terms of the activities involved.
The term “intercourse” is derived from the Latin term ‘intercursus’ which means ‘running between. In its ordinary meaning, it means ‘movement of persons’.[2] Scope of the term Intercourse in purview of Article 301 is much argued because of its wider connotation; as to consider it whether the part of commercial movement or non commercial or both.
Seervai H.M., a renowned jurist is of the opinion that intercourse does not fall in different head of freedom; but considers interpretation as commercial intercourse only. In his article[3], firstly, he justifies his view that as intercourse is placed in juxtaposition with terms of trade and commerce, it must not be targeting purposeless movement but there must be some commercial intention behind it.
Secondly, he is of the opinion that although in the Australian case[4], section 92 of the Australian Constitution interprets the term intercourse as to confer a personal right to pass over the continent of Australia irrespective of the fact that he might possess any commercial attribute but it is to be remembered that Article 19(1)(d) of Indian Constitution already gives specific freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India.
Thus, the context of intercourse in Article 301 must be dealing with trade and commerce; and not non commercial or any other free movement. Another argument he gives is that Article 301, which guarantees freedom of trade and commerce, constitutes general limitation on the exercise of legislative powers of Union and State Legislature. In none of the legislative list in the Seventh Schedule is, intercourse inclusion as a subject of legislative power; whereas, trade and commerce is part of all the three lists.
Dr. D.D. Basu holds that “since ‘intercourse’ has been separately mentioned in Article 301, in juxtaposition[5] with the word ‘commerce’ as in section 92 of the Australian Constitution”; it would refer to non commercial intercourse. It would thus mean the freedom of an individual to travel across the barriers and have dealings with the citizens of another part of the country. The term “intercourse”, therefore, covers the case of importation for personal use; e.g., intercourse between citizens involving movement of property from one place to another.[6]
Other opinion regarding the term of intercourse is that the term is wide enough to include both commercial as well as non commercial movements. It may include, travelling, communication, speech, etc. exchanged between the persons for certain dealings. So, we can conclude that term has wider scope as to change its meaning with different cases and circumstances.
TRACING DOWN THE HISTORY
FREEDOM OF TRADE AND COMMERCE BEFORE INDEPENDENCE IN INDIA
During British era, India’s trade opened to new ventures. India was then divided into British India and Indian provinces; there were different rules of trade for both the administrative parts. Simon Commission Report, 1930 for the first time recommended Indian federal government for the economic unity.
Government of India Act, 1935 introduced a federal government with strong centre. Section 297 was put in the act which is similar to Article 301 of the Constitution to map out the need of strong central control. Clause 1 of Section 297 was enacted in regard with the powers of the provinces-
“Sec.297 (l)[7] No Provincial Legislature or Government shall –
(a) by virtue of the entry in the Provincial Legislative list relating to trade and commerce within the Province; or the entry in that list relating to the production, supply and distribution of commodities have power to pass any law or take any executive action; prohibiting or restricting the entry into, or export from, the province of goods or any class or description;
(b) by virtue of anything in this Act have power to impose any tax, cess, toll or due which, as between goods manufactured or produced in the province; and similar goods not so manufactured or produced, discriminates in favor of the former; or which, in the case of goods manufactured or produced outside the Province; discriminates between goods manufactured or produced in one locality and similar goods manufactured or produced in another locality. Any law passed in contravention of this section shall, to the extent of the contravention, be invalid.”
FREEDOM OF TRADE AND COMMERCE IN INDIA POST INDEPENDENCE
After independence, the drafting committee of Indian constitution with careful consideration to other federal constitutions of the world carved out Part 13th specifically for the laying down the provisions related to Freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse.
Article 301[8] is of the Australian descent as adopted from section 92 of the Australian constitution which says … trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.
The notable differences between article 301 and section 92 of the Australian constitution are Article 301 guarantees freedom throughout the territory of India i.e. both inter- state (within the state) and intra-state ( between the states); while section 92 guarantees the freedom among the states only i.e. inter-state level only. Other distinctive character is Australian constitution guarantees the freedom which is ‘absolutely free’ means leaving the limitations up to the exigencies of the society; while, in Indian constitution freedom is not absolute and contains limitations for restrictive provisions in Part 13.
RES EXTRA COMMERCIUM
Res Extra Commercium is a Latin phrase which means ‘a thing outside commerce’. In the case State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala[9] Justice Das pointed out that the protection of Article 301 was available in respect to such activities as would be regarded as lawful trading activities and it did not extend to activities which in their very nature and essence were res extra commercium, i.e., activities which could not be said to be trade or commerce or business.[10]
The underlying objective behind the phrase of Res Extra Commercium is protecting the society from vicious and pernicious activities carrying on in the name of right to practice any profession; or to carry on any occupation, trade or business assured under Article 19(1) (g). There can be no business in crime.
In Fateh Chand v. State of Maharashtra[11], Supreme court while upholding the validity of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1976, ruled that systematic business of money lending amongst the commercial community was a trade under Article 301, but rural money lending by unscrupulous persons was a means of exploitation of the weaker sections and oppose to the Directive Principles of State Policy, e.g. Principles embodied in Articles 38, 39(a) and 39(c) and, therefore ban as a pernicious trade.
Gambling does not come under the purview of Article 301 as the activity of gambling in the morally ethical country like India could not be made part of trade and commerce by the framers of our constitution.[12]
Lotteries cannot reach the status of trade and commerce because trade has element of skill, while lotteries do not. Moreover, element of chance present in lottery makes it more like gambling than trade or commerce. The passing of The Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 at the hands of the parliament of India which challenged the case of M/S B.R. Enterprises v. State of Uttar Pradesh[13] calling it violative of Articles 301 to 303. SC upheld its validity by excluding lotteries from the category of trade and commerce; thus the question of claiming of freedom under Articles 301 to 303 does not arise. In the Australian case of King v.Connare[14], Justice Evatt, held the same view by excluding lotteries from the terms trade and commerce under Section 92.
OBJECT AND SCOPE OF THE FREEDOM
To study the object and scope of the freedom guaranteed in Article 301 we need to dissect the Article‘s very essence.
Article 301 reads as Subject to the other provisions of this Part, trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free.
Object – As the Article states That trade, commerce and intercourse ‘throughout the territory of India’ unlike Australian constitution that enables the freedom only among its states. While adopting the provision from Australian constitution, geographical[15] as well as cultural diversity of India has been kept in mind. To safeguard the facets of federalism in India is the main objective of this provision; by minimizing the inter-state barriers and inculcating the feeling of one nation among people.
Another goal of this Article is to make trade, commerce and intercourse free throughout India; so as to make them the forerunners of national progress. With no barriers, resources can be utilized in the common interest of the country, creating and preserving a national economic fabric[16].
Scope – The scope of Article 301 is wider than many other trade and commerce provisions in other constitutions of the world. Firstly, the Article imposes restrictions in the other provisions of the Part 13th unlike Section 92 of Australian constitution which declares the freedom absolutely free, leaving it for courts according to different exigencies of the society. Secondly, the freedom extends to the whole territory of India while in Australian constitution it only extends among its states.
In the constitution of America, Article 1, Section 8 (3) called the commerce clause gives power only to the Congress to regulate commerce with foreign Nations and among the several states. Thus, we can say that in U.S. constitution only Congress is the competent authority to regulate rules, regarding trade and commerce and state legislation are not allowed. But the freedom assured by Article 301 is not confined to freedom from such laws as the Legislatures may pass in the exercise of its legislative power under those Entries in the Legislative Lists in the Seventh Schedule which relate to “trade and commerce”[17].
Article 301 thus, constitutes a general limitation in its expression “subject to the other provisions of this Part” on legislative power and competence of Parliament as well as of the State Legislatures.[18] The expression “throughout the territory of India”, in Article 301 means throughout the various regions comprising the territory of India. Therefore whether restrictionsare imposed at the frontiers of a State or at any stage prior or subsequent thereto.[19]
LIMITATIONS ON THE FREEDOM GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE 301
Article 301 guarantees freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India; but this freedom is subject to certain restrictions which are found in Part 13 only from Article 302 to 305. Here every Article must be observed carefully.
Article 302 reads as Parliament may by law impose such restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse between one state and another or within any part of the territory of India as may be required in public interest.
This Article restricts the freedom guaranteed in Article 302 by the action of Parliamentary laws. Imposition of restriction by any executive action is not the purpose of this article; but only by legislative action. Another important essential of this Article to be fulfilled is that the Parliamentary law must be made in the interest of the public[20]. The provision covers both intra-state as well inter – state territory which means law is applicable in regard to both.
Article 303 reads as (1) “Notwithstanding anything in article 302, neither parliament nor a state legislature shall have power to make any law giving any preference to one state over another, or making any discrimination between one state over another, by virtue of any entry relating to trade and commerce in any of the lists in the seventh schedule.
(2) nothing in clause (1) shall prevent parliament from making any law giving any preference or making any discrimination if it is declared by such law that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of dealing with a situation arising from scarcity of goods in any part of the territory of India”.
Article 302 imposes general restriction on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. Whereas, Article 303(1) imposes restriction not on the freedom aforementioned; but on the powers of the parliament to enact law, by the virtue of any Entry related to trade and commerce, in any of the lists of the Seventh Schedule; vested by Article 302.This clause prohibits state legislature to make any law related to trade and commerce.
It is in order to keep check on the parliamentary powers; and keep up with the harmony destined to obtain by the concept of ‘in the interest of the public’. This Article takes away the power vested in Parliament to make law if the law seems to be discriminatory. It would apply to Entries only related to trade and commerce and not to any other like defense. If some law is uniformly applicable; but due to economic condition differentiation is made in one state, it will not be hit by Article 303(1). In
In State of Madras v. Nataraja Mudaliar[21] upholding the validity of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, SC observed that trade conditions of every state may vary as it depends on a variety of factors such as the source of supply, the place of consumption, trading facilities, etc. Thus Act levying tax at the rate of 7% or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate state, whichever was higher; held as not violative of Article 303 (1).
Article 303(2) is exception to the limitation mentioned aforesaid in clause (1) of the Article. This clause authorizes Parliament to make law relating to trade and commerce which may give preference to one state over another; or discriminate between one state and another; provided such law is necessary for the purpose of dealing with the situation arising from scarcity of goods in any part of the territory of India. Keeping in view the national interest and economical balance the implementation of this law took place; thus the saving grace of discriminatory law lies with clause (2) only if it contains such express declaration.
Article 304 reads as “notwithstanding anything in article 301 or article 303, the state legislature may by law:
(a) impose on goods imported from other states or the union territories any tax to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that state are subject, so, however, as not to discriminate between goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced; and
(b) Impose such reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within that state as may be required in the public interest:
Provided that no bill or amendment for the purpose of clause (b) shall be introduced or moved in the state legislature without the previous sanction of the president.”
For the purpose of understanding this Article, we need to get that it is an exception to Articles 301 or 303; and if we read articles 301 and 303 (1) together, we come across the notable view point that Article 301 says that there will be no question of state that arises as it is applicable to the whole of India; and 303(1) which prohibits to make any law preferential or discriminatory in context of any state by the virtue of any entry relating to trade and commerce in any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule. Thus Article 304 opens with the wording “notwithstanding anything in article 301 or article 303…”
Article 304 empowers the State Legislature to regulate trade and commerce in two ways:
Clause (a) regulates it by imposition of taxes,
Clause (b) regulates it by imposing reasonable restrictions.
Clause (a) of Article 304 has to be read with Article 303 (1) .While Article 303 (1) prohibits discriminatory legislation in general, Article 304 (a) strikes at discriminatory tax laws being made by the State Legislature.[22] The objective behind clause (a) of 304 is to prevent discrimination against imported goods by imposing taxes usually higher than the price of local goods, impeding the free flow of inter- state trade and commerce which has always been the underlying goal of the provisions in Part 13.
The question of discrimination arises only if quality of the goods imported are of similar quality and not whether on the question that they are earlier taxed or not.[23] Concessions granted in favor of comparatively under developed states or industrially backward would not attract Article 304 (a).[24] The microscopic differentiation which may be rational and justifiable for e. g. differentiation in rates of tax or differentiation based on goods produced or temporary exemption from sales tax to specified local goods based on natural and business factors, etc. does not violate Article 304 (a).[25] Where goods similar to those imported from other States are not locally produced or manufactured within the State, Article 304 (a) will not authorize the levy of tax on the imported goods.[26]
Clause (b) of Article 304 impose reasonable restrictions on freedom related to the matters of trade, commerce and intercourse carried on in both inter as well as intra state. It’s imposition by State Legislature is only in the interest of the public. Prior sanction of the President is mandatory for the protection under this clause. However, if the prior assent of the President is not secured, the infirmity can be cured by subsequent assent of the President after the bill has been passed by State Legislature, by the virtue of the provisions of Article 255.
In M/s. Punjab Traders v. State of Punjab, [27]it was held that a law restricting trade or commerce without president’s assent is held unconstitutional is even if the restriction so imposed is reasonable. It is noteworthy that only President and not the Government of India provides the assent; distinction between President and Government of India lies in Kaiser- i-Hind Pvt. Ltd. v. N.T.C. Ltd.[28] To make any State action justiciable it must contain the elements of (1) Reasonable restriction and (2) Public Interest.
In Baijnath v. State of M.P.[29] M.P. Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1965 under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, preventing the sale of paddy via the agriculturist or dealers except to the Director of Food and Supplies with the view to secure maximum supply of the essential commodity, rice, and to arrange equitable distribution and availability at fair price in the interest of general public through imposing reasonable restriction.
Thus, it can be protected under Article 304 (b). Establishment of check- posts, barriers, tolls for the usage of roads, bridges, etc. constructed by Government, octroi duty[30]etc. does not violate Articles 301 and 304 as they facilitate the passage of goods and do not impede it.
Article 305 reads as “nothing in articles. 301 and 303 shall affect the provisions of any existing law except in so far as the president may by order otherwise direct, and nothing in article 301 shall affect the operation of any law made before the commencement of the constitution (4th amendment) act, 1955, in so far as it relates to, or prevent parliament or a state legislature from making any law providing for state monopoly in a particular sphere of trade or commerce [i.e. a law under article 19(6)(2)].”
Article 305 is a saving clause which successfully saves the “existing laws” from the operation of Articles 301 and 303, except in so far as the President may by order otherwise direct. “Existing Law[31]” means an act passed before the commencement of the Constitution even though the act has been brought into force after the commencement of the Constitution[32].
In State of Mysore v. H. Sanjeeviah[33] it was held that the subordinate legislation, for e.g., rules, regulations or notifications made under an existing law after the commencement of the Constitution would not be deemed to be existing law and thus would not be protected under Article 305. But if the amendment made after the commencement of the Constitution does not change the character of the existing law, it will be saved by Article 305.[34]
Article 19 (6) (2) added by 1ST Constitutional Amendment immunes the state under Article 305 to make any law, providing for monopoly in its favor to any trade, business, industry or service; whether enacted before or after the commencement of the Constitution.
Appointment of authority for carrying out the purposes of articles 301 to 304
Article 307 empowers parliament to appoint by law such authority as it considers appropriate for carrying out the purposes of articles 301-304. The exact composition of the authority establishment is upon the parliament. Since the matters relating to trade, commerce and intercourse are more economic in content than legal, a body consisting of experts such as economists, businessmen and lawyers may do a much better job in this area than a court having merely legal expertise.
TAX LAWS
Tax laws have been the subject of discussion in Part 13 of the Constitution dealing with freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. Tax laws discussed in the aforementioned context are mainly of two types: (1) Prohibitive or Restrictive Taxes and (2) Regulatory or Compensatory Taxes.
- Prohibitive taxes are also called Restrictive taxes because they directly restrict the trade. Such taxes which directly and immediately impede or hamper the free flow of trade, commerce and intercourse fall within the prohibition imposed by Article 301.[35] In Aitabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam[36], the Assam Legislature passed Assam Taxation(on Goods Carried by Roads or Inland Waterways) Act, 1954 to levy taxes on certain goods carried by roads or inland waterways in the state of Assam. The appellants were the growers of tea and used to carry their tea to the market in Calcutta through the territory of Assam by roads or inland waterways from Assam to Bengal. The tea carried by the appellants were subjected to the tax imposed on goods directly restricted their transport or movement and therefore offended against Article 301.
- Regulatory taxes also known as Compensatory taxes because they are merely regulatory measures and do not violate the freedom assured in Article 301. The word “free” in Article 301 does not mean freedom from regulations. The word “regulation” does not have any fixed meaning; it changes with the varying factors such as matters relating to hours, equipment, size, weight, load, lights, etc. Measures like traffic regulations, octroi duty, licensing of vehicles, marketing and health regulations, price control, economic and social planning prescribing minimum wages, do not violate, Article 301.Instead of hampering trade, they, in fact, facilitate the free movement.
In Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan[37] Section 4 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, read with the Schedules and Section 11, required the payment of tax in respect to motor vehicle, used within the State in any public place or kept for use in the State. The court ruled that the tax was not hit by Article 301 as it was a compensatory tax having been levied for the use of roads, provided for and maintained by the State.
To know whether the tax is compensatory or not we need to go through the definition of the compensatory tax enunciated in Automobile Transport Ltd. case. The court explained the compensatory tax “is a compulsory contribution levied broadly in proportion to special benefits derived to defray costs of regulation, or to meet the outlay incurred for some special advantage to trade, commerce and intercourse.”
But recently in Jindal Stainless Steel Ltd. v. State of Haryana the court gave a narrower view regarding this and held governing of taxing laws by Part 12 of the constitution and none other except the Article 304 (a). The mention of restrictions under Article 301 and other articles of part 13 cannot be compensatory taxes as not mentioned expressly in the exceptions or restrictions.
INTER RELATION AND COMPARISON BETWEEN ARTICLES 19 (1) (g) AND 301
There is hardly any finding of inter relation between Articles 19 (1) (g) and 301 because former gives right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business while the latter gives the right to trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India with certain restrictions.
While comparing the two articles it is observed that the invocation of Article 301 when individual is prevented from carrying goods from one part to another, while invocation of article 19(1) (g) happens even if there is no movement of goods involved. Thus we can say, article 301 contemplates on the trade in motion and article 19(1) (g) secures the right at rest. Article 301 is wider concept as it allows both citizen and non citizen to invoke it unlike Article 19 (1) (g) which is a fundamental right and can be only be invoked by citizens. When suspension of article 19 (1) (g) in emergency happens, article 301 comes into action.
CONCLUSION
Article 301 of Part 13 of the Constitution was adopted from Australian Constitution to ensure the freedom and federal polity of the nation but somewhere it lacks its own personal characteristics. It is ambiguous in nature as firstly it assures the freedom in Article 301 but as it moves toward the further provisions it has whole lot of restrictions and limitations on the freedom. It thus creates deterioration in interpreting the whole Part. Moreover it was made with the objective of creating harmony between state and union trade or commerce but certain restrictions put on the state legislatures blur out its very essence. But its wider concept and scope than fundamental right assured in Article 19 (1) (g) makes it unique.
References:
[1] Section 2(x) in the Competition Act,2003; see https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1113485/
[2] The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary by W. A. SHumaker, 3rd edition, 1940, p. 589.
[3] Seervai, H. (1963). The Freedom of Trade and Commerce in the Indian Constitution: The Atiabari Case and after. The Cambridge Law Journal, 21(1), 54-84. doi:10.1017/S0008197300085731
[4] R. v. Smithers, (1912) 16 CLR 99 at 113
[5] Juxtaposition here holds different meaning from the one mentioned by earlier jurist, here it means separately and not under the terms of trade and commerce.
[6] Commentary on the Constitution of India, L, 1986, 234. See Constitutional Law of India by Narendra Kumar, 10 Th edition, 2018, p. 984.
[7] The Government of India Act, 1935.
[8] Article 301 of Indian Constitution –“Subject to the other provisions of this Part, trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free”.
[9] AIR 1957 SC 699. Also see Khoday Distilleries Ltd. V. State of Karnataka, AIR 1996 SC 911.
[10] See Constitutional Law Of India by Narendra Kumar, 10th edition, 2018; p. 984.
[11] AIR 1977 SC1825.
[12] State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala, AIR 1957 SC 699.
[13] AIR 1999 SC 1867.
[14] (1939) 61 CLR 596, 621.
[15] See A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27. See also Article 19(1) (c) and (d) of the Constitution of India.
[16] Atiabari Tea co. v. State of Assam, AIR 1961 SC 232. See also Bowie, Studies in Federalism, 1954, 296.
[17] See Constitutional Law of India by Narendra Kumar , 10th edition, 2018; p. 986
[18] Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 1406.
[19] Aitabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, AIR 1961 SC 232.
[20] State of Tamil Nadu v. Sitalakshmi Mills AIR 1974 SC 1505; Section 8 (2) (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 provided a high rate of tax, namely, 10% or the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate state whichever is higher. Section 8 (2) (b) holds valid as enacted in the interest of public by canalizing inter -state trade through registered dealers over whom the appropriate govt. had control and to thus to prevent evasion of tax. Also see Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1340.
[21] AIR 1969 SC 147.
[22] Western Electronics v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 2038.
[23] Kalyani Stores v. State of Orissa AIR 1966 SC 1686.
[24] M/s. Widia(India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, JT 2003 (7) SC 237.
[25] State of Karnataka v. Hansa Corporation AIR 1981 SC 463. See also Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1990 SC 820 .
[26] Kalyani Stores v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1686. See also Abdul v. State of Kerala, AIR 1976 SC 182.
[27] AIR 1990 SC 2300.
[28] AIR 2002 SC 3404.
[29] AIR 1969 SC 504.
[30] The duty imposed on the entry of goods in a corporate area.
[31] Existing Law is defined in clause (10) of Article 366.
[32] Bangalore Woolen Mills v. Corp. of Bangalore, AIR 1962 SC 562.
[33] AIR 1967 SC 1189.
[34] Lila Vati Bai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 521.
[35] Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1958 Raj. 114.
[36] AIR 1961 SC 232.
[37] AIR 1962 SC1406.
0 Comments