{"id":245916,"date":"1970-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970"},"modified":"2017-06-05T15:53:14","modified_gmt":"2017-06-05T10:23:14","slug":"hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970","title":{"rendered":"Hansraj Bagrecha vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 September, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Hansraj Bagrecha vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 September, 1970<\/div>\n
Bench: [J. C. Shah, K. S. Grover, Jj.]<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHANSRAJ BAGRECHA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n18\/09\/1970\n\nBENCH:\n[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A.\t N. GROVER, JJ.]\n\n\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution  of India, Arts. 301 & 304-The Bihar Sales\t Tax\nAct, 1959 as amended by Bihar Finance Act, 1966, ss. 3A, 5A,\nand 42-The Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1959, R.31B-Levy of purchase\ntax  on\t goods\twhether per se\trestrictive  of\t freedom  of\ntarade-Presidential assent whether required for levy of tax-\nSections  3A & 5A of Bihar Act whether invalid on ground  of\ncontravention of s. 15 of Central Sales Tax Act,  1956-Rules\n31B restricts transport of goods pursuant to transactions in\ncourse of inter-State trade-Hence invalid.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nUnder  s. 5A of the Bihar Sales Tax Act 1959 as\t amended  by\nthe  Bihar  Finance  Act, 1966 the  purchase  tax  on  goods\ndeclared  under\t s.  3A was to be levied  at  the  point  of\npurchase made from a person other than a registered  dealer.\nBy  a notification dated September 14, 1966 the Governor  of\nBihar declared jute as a commodity liable to purchase tax at\nthe  rate  specified  in the  notification.   The  appellant\ncarried\t on business in jute, In the course of his  business\nhe.  purchased\traw  jute from\tproducers  in  West  Bengal,\ntransported  it to Kishenganj Railway Station in  Bihar\t and\nthen  re-exported it to purchasers in West Bengal.  He\talso\nbought\traw jute in Bihar and exported it to  merchants\t and\nmill-owners  in West Bengal by rail from Kishenganj  Railway\nStation.   After  the enactment of ss. 3A and 5A  the  State\nGovernment  issued  a notification dated December  26,\t1967\npurporting to exercise power under S. 42 of the Bihar  Sales\nTax Act, 1959 read with r. 31B of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules,\n1959  notifying that no person shall tender at\tany  railway\nstation\t mentioned  in\tSch.  11 any  consignment  of  goods\nmentioned  in Sch.  I exceeding the quantity  specified\t for\ntransport  to  any place inside the State of  Bihar  and  no\nperson\tshall  accept  such tender in  accordance  with\t the\nconditions laid down in the said R. 31B.  Under Sch.  I jute\nexceeding  800\tkg.  could not\tbe  tendered  for  transport\nwithout\t a  despatch Permit and Kishenganj was\tone  of\t the\nrailway\t stations mentioned in Sch.  11.  In July  1967\t the\nSuperintendent\tof Commercial Taxes prohibited\tthe  railway\nauthorities from loading and despatching jute goods from any\nrailway station in Purnea district without the production of\na  registration\t certificate.  For  non-production  of\tsuch\ncertificate the railway authorities refused to despatch from\nKishenganj  the\t jute goods booked by  the  appellant.\t The\nappellant moved a 'writ petition in the High Court of  Patna\nchallenging inter alia the validity ,of ss. 3A and 5A of the\nBihar  Sales Tax Act and of R.31B. The High Court  dismissed\nthe  petition.\t With  certificate the\tpresent\t appeal\t was\nfiled.\tIn support of the petition it was urged (i) that ss.\n3A and 5A infringed the guarantee of freedom of trade  under\nArt. 301 of the Constitution and since the amendment by\t the\nFinance Act, 1966 introducing these sections did not receive\nthe assent of the President under Art. 304(b) the  amendment\nwas not saved; (ii) that ss. 3A and 5A were contrary to'  s.\n15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and accordingly  void;\n(iii)  that P.- 31B framed by the State Government  and\t the\nnotification issued on December 2.6, 1967 were\tunauthorised\nand liable to be struck down.\nHELD:\t  (i)  The assumption that the levy of purchase\t tax\nmust be deemed in all circumstances to violate the guarantee\nunder Art. 301 and\n413\nthe  levy  will be valid only if the Act is enacted  by\t the\nState\tLegislature  with  the\tprevious  sanction  of\t the\nPresident cannot be accepted as correct.  Imposition of\t tax\nmay  in\t certain circumstances impede free  flow  of  trade,\ncommerce and intercourse.  But every tax does not have\tthat\neffect.[417 G; 419 E]\nState  of Madras v. N. K. Nataraja Mudaliar<\/a> [1968] 3  S.C.R.\n829,  Atiabari\tTea  Co. Ltd. v. State of  Assam,<\/a>  [1967]  1\nS.C.R.\t809  and The Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. State  of  Andhra\nPradesh,<\/a> 21 S.T.C. 212, applied.\nIn the present case the petitioner has made no averments  in\nhis  petition  which supported the plea that  imposition  of\npurchase-tax  directly and immediately restricts or  impedes\nthe free flow of trade.\t Since power to impose purchase\t tax\nunder  s.  3A was not shown to restrict or impede  the\tfree\nflow of trade directly and immediately, it need not seek  to\nderive for its validity, support from Art.. 304(b). [419 G]\n(ii) By\t s. 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, tax  liable  in\nrespect\t of  declared  goods  on  transactions\tof  sale  or\npurchase  is  restricted to 3% and is not leviable  at\tmore\nthan one stage.\t There was no dispute that the purchase\t tax\non jute was leviable at the first point of purchase under S.\n3A  of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, and the rate of tax was\t not\nshown  to  exceed  the maximum prescribed by s.\t 15  of\t the\nCentral\t Sales Tax Act.\t The provisions of ss. 3A and 5A  of\nthe Bihar Sales Tax Act are not therefore    inconsistent\nwith  the provisions of s. 15 of the Central Sales Tax\tAct.\n[420 E]\n(iii)\t  Rule 31B of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules must however\nbe struck down as ultra vires. [420 F]\nThe  power  of\tthe  State  Legislature\t is  restricted\t  to\nlegislate  in respect of intra--State transactions  of\tsale\nand purchase and to matters ancillary or incidental  thereto\n: it has no power to legislate for levy of tax on sales\t and\npurchase  in  the course of inter-State\t transactions.\t The\npower  conferred  by  s. 42 authorising\t the  imposition  of\nrestriction  or transport or movement of goods may  only  be\nexercised in respect of transactions which facilitate  levy,\ncollection   and   recovery  of\t tax  on   transactions\t  of\nintra--State  sale  or\tpurchase.   When  r.  31B  prohibits\ntransport  of goods to any place outside the State of  Bihar\nunless\ta  certificate\tis  obtained  from  the\t appropriate\nauthority, it seeks to prohibit transport of goods  pursuant\nto transactions which may not even be of the nature of\tsale\nor purchase transactions; in any case it restricts transport\npursuant to transactions in the course of inter--State trade\nand  commerce.\tThe operation of the rule is not  restricted\nonly to transactions in the course of intra State trade\t and\ncommerce.   The rule authorises restrictions on\t inter-State\ntransactions  and is on that account unauthorised.  For\t the\nsame  reasons the notification issued on December  26,\t1967\nmust be regarded as also unauthorised. [421 E-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1985 of 1969.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated January 4, 1969  of
\nthe-  patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction  case\t No.
\n520 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n
M.   C.\t Chagla,  D.  P. Singh and V. J.  Francis,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
L.   M. Singhvi and U. P. Singh, for respondents Nos.  1  to\n<\/p>\n
4.
\n4 14
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSHAH,  J. This appeal is filed with certificate\t granted  by
\nthe  High  Court  of Patna under Art. 133  (1)\t(a)  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant Hansraj Bagrecha carries on business in  jute.
\nIn  the course of his business the appellant buys  raw\tjute
\nfrom  producers in West Bengal, transports it to  Kishanganj
\nRailway\t Station  (which is within the State of\t Bihar)\t and
\nthen  re-exports it to purchasers in West Bengal.   He\talso
\nbuys  raw jute in Bihar and exports it to the  merchants  or
\nmill  owners in West Bengal by rail from Kishahganj  Railway
\nStation.\n<\/p>\n
The Bihar Sales Tax Act 1959, as originally enacted did\t not
\nprovide for levy of purchase tax.  By the Bihar Finance Act,
\n1966,  with  effect  from April 1, 1967,  among\t others\t the
\nfollowing sections were incorporated in the Bihar Sales\t Tax
\nAct, 1959
\n\t      S.3A  “The State Government may from  tune  to
\n\t      time, by notification declare any goods to  be
\n\t      liable to purchase tax on turnover of purchase
\n\t      :\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided\tthat general sales tax\tand  special
\n\t      sales tax shall not be payable on the sale  of
\n\t      goods  or class of goods declared\t under\tthis
\n\t      section.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      S.    5A\t“The purchase tax on goods  declared
\n\t      under section 3A shall be levied at the point-
\n\t      of  purchase made from a person other  than  a
\n\t      registered dealer.”\n<\/p>\n
By  a notification dated September 14, 1966 the Governor  of
\nBihar declared ‘jute’ as a commodity liable to purchase\t tax
\nat the rate specified in the notification.
\nSection\t 42  of\t the  Bihar  Sales  Tax\t Act  by  the  first
\nsubsection provided :\n<\/p>\n
\t       “No  person shall transport from any  railway
\n\t      station,\t steamer  station,  air-port,\tpost
\n\t      office or any other place, whether of  similar
\n\t      nature  or otherwise, notified in this  behalf
\n\t      by  the State Govt., any consignment  of\tsuch
\n\t      goods,  exceeding\t such quantity,\t as  may  be
\n\t      specified\t in  the  notification,\t except\t  in
\n\t      accordance  with\tsuch conditions\t as  may  be
\n\t      prescribed  and such conditions shall be\tmade
\n\t      with  a  view  to ensuring that  there  is  no
\n\t      evasion of tax payable under this Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section\t 46  of the Act invested the State  Government\twith
\npower  to make rules for all matters expressly\trequired  or
\nallowed\t by  the  Act to be  prescribed\t and  generally\t for
\ncarrying  out  the purposes of the Act\tand  regulating\t the
\nprocedure to be followed, forms to
\n415<\/span>
\nbe   adopted  and  fees\t to  be\t paid  in  connection\twith
\nproceedings under the Act and all other matters ancillary or
\nincidental thereto.\n<\/p>\n
In  exercise  of the powers conferred under s, 46  (1)\tthe
\nState  of  Bihar promulgated under Rules 31 B and  8C,\tRule
\n31B, which provided
\n\t      “(1)  No\tperson shall tender at\tany  railway
\n\t      station,\tsteamer\t station,  air-port,   post-
\n\t      office or any other place, whether of  similar
\n\t      nature  or otherwise, notified  under  section
\n\t      42,  any consignment of such  goods  exceeding
\n\t      such  quantity,  as may be specified  ‘in\t the
\n\t      notification,  for  transport  to\t any   place
\n\t      outside the State of Bihar, unless such person
\n\t      has obtained a despatch permit in Form XXVIII-
\n\t      D\t from the appropriate authority referred  to
\n\t      in  the Explanation to rule 31 and no  person,
\n\t      shall  accept  such  tender  unless  the\tsaid
\n\t      permit is surrendered to him.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      Rule 30(1) provided
\n\t      “The  first purchase of goods  declared  under
\n\t      section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956,
\n\t      shall be leviable to tax in terms of  sections
\n\t      3,  3A  and 5A of the Act\t and  no  subsequent
\n\t      sales  or\t purchases in respect  of  the\tsaid
\n\t      goods  shall  be liable to any tax  under\t the
\n\t      Act.”‘
\nAfter  the enactment of ss. 3A and 5A the  State  Government
\nissued. a notification dated December 26, 1967 purporting to
\nexercise power under s. 42 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act,\t1959
\nread  with  r.\t31B  of the Bihar  Sales  Tax  Rules,  1959,
\nnotifying that no person shall tender at any railway station
\nmentioned in Sch.  II, and consignment of goods mentioned in
\nSch.   I, exceeding the quantity specified for transport  to
\nany  place  outside the State of Bihar and no  person  shall
\naccept\tsuch  tender  in  accordance  with  the\t  conditions
\nprescribed  in\tr. 31B of the Bihar Sales Tax  Rules,  1959.
\nUnder Sch.  I `Jute’ exceeding 800 Kg. could not be tendered
\nfor  transport without “a despatch pen-nit”, and  Kishanganj
\nwas one of the Railway Stations mentioned in Sch.  II.
\nIn July 1967 the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes  addres-
\nsed  a\tletter\tprohibiting  the  railway  authorities\tfrom
\nloading\t jute  goods and despatching them from\tany  railway
\nstation\t within\t the  Purnea District of  Bihar,  except  on
\nproduction  of a “registration certificate”.  By his  letter
\ndated  July  10, 1967 the Station Master  Kishanganj  called
\nupon the Secretary, Jute Merchants Association,\t Kishanganj,
\nto  produce a certificate as required in the letter of\tthe
\nSuperintendent\tof  Commercial Taxes, before  “loading\tjute
\ngoods for despatch was commenced” and informed them that  in
\ndefault\t wagons\t allotted  to the jute\tmerchants  shall  be
\ncancelled and
\n416<\/span>
\nregistration,  fees, forfeited and that “demurrage”  win  be
\ncharged.  The appellants request that jute booked by him  be
\ndespatched from.  Kishanganj was turned down by the  railway
\nauthorities, because the registration certificate issued  by
\nthe  Superintendent  of\t Commercial Taxes,  Purnea  for\t the
\nmovement of jute from the place was not produced.
\nThe appellant then moved a petition before the High Court of
\nPatna on August 29, 1967 challenging the validity of ss. 3A,
\n5A, 42 and 46 and r. 31B of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
\nThe  High  Court  of Patna  dismissed  the  petition.\tWith
\ncertificate  granted by the High Court this appeal has\tbeen
\npreferred by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
In  support-of the appeal counsel for the  appellant  raised
\nthree contentions :\n<\/p>\n
(1)  that  ss.\t3A & 5A as incorporated 4th Finance  Act  of
\n1966 infringed the guarantee of freedom of trade under\tArt.
\n301 of the Constitution and since the amendment made by\t the
\nFinance\t Act,  1966  did  not  receive\tthe  assent  of\t the
\nPresident under Art. 304(b) the amendment was not saved;
\n(2)  that ss. 3A & 5A and r. 8C “were contrary to” s.  15 of
\nthe  Central  Sales  Tax Act, 1956 and\twere  void  on\tthat
\naccount; and
\n(3)  that  r.  31B framed by the State\tGovernment  and\t the
\nnotification  issued on December 26, 1967 were\tunauthorised
\nand liable to. be struck down.\n<\/p>\n
Article 301 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of trade,
\ncommerce and intercourse throughout the territory of  India.
\nBy  Art. 302 the Parliament is authorised by law  to  impose
\nsuch  restrictions  on\tthe freedom of\ttrade,\tcommerce  or
\nintercourse between one State and another or within any part
\nof  the territory ofIndia as may be required in\t the  public
\ninterest.   Art. 303(1) imposes restrictions upon the  power
\nwhich  the  Parliament\tor the Legislature of  a  State\t may
\nexercise  to make any law giving, or authorising the  giving
\nof,  any preference to one State over another, or making  or
\nauthorising  the making of, any discrimination\tbetween\t one
\nState and another, by virtue of any entry relating to  trade
\nand  commerce in any of the Lists in the  Seventh  Schedule.
\nBut  that clause does not operate to restrict the  power  of
\nthe  Parliament\t to make any law giving,  or  authorise\t the
\ngiving\tof,  any  preference or making\tor  authorising\t the
\nmaking of, any discrimination, if it is declared by such law
\nthat  it  is necessary to do so for the purpose\t of  dealing
\nwith a situation arising from
\n417<\/span>
\nscarcity, of\t     in, any part of, the territory of India
\nArt    303
\n(2).\t  Art. 304 provides in so far as it is relevant
\n\t      “Notwithstanding\tanything in article 301\t :or
\n\t      article
\n\t      303, the Legislature of a State may by law-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   impose  such reasonable restrictions  on
\n\t      the freedom of trade, commerce or\t intercourse
\n\t      with or within that State as may be  required
\n\t      in the public interest
\n\t      Provided\tthat no Bill ‘or amendment  for\t the
\n\t      purpose  of clause (b) shall be introduced  or
\n\t      moved  in\t the pose Legislature,\tof  a  State
\n\t      without\tthe   Previous\t sanction   of\t the
\n\t      President.”\n<\/p>\n
Art. 304 is in terms a restriction on the freedom guaranteed
\nby Art. 301.  Notwithstanding the amplitude of, the  freedom
\nof trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the  territory
\nof  India,  the Legislature of a State may  by\tlaw  impose,
\namong  others such reasonable restrictions on the,,  freedom
\nof  trade,, cow or intercourse with or within that State  as
\nmay be required in the public interest.\t But that  authority
\nto impose reasonable, restrictions on the freedom of  trade,
\nmay only be, exercised by the Legislature of a State if\t the
\nBill  or amendment for the Purpose of cl. (b) is  introduced
\nor  moved  in the Legislature of a State with  the  previous
\nsanction of the President.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t contended  that since s. 3A providing\tfor  the  of
\npurchase tax imposes a restriction on the freedom of trade,,
\ncommerce  and intercourse and on that account  violates\t the
\nfreedom\t of  trade guaranteed by Art. 301, it way  be  saved
\nonly if it is legislation of the nature contemplated by Art.
\n304(b) and the Bill which was enacted into the Act  received
\nthe previous assent of the President.  The assumption  that the
\nlevy   of  purchase  tax  must\tbe  deemed   in\t  all
\ncircumstances, to violate the . guarantee under Art. 30\t 1,
\nand  the levy will be valid only, if the Act is\t enacted  by
\nthe  State  Legislature with the previous  sanction  of\t the
\nPresident, cannot be accepted’as correct.  This Court in The
\nState of Madras v. N. K. Nataraja Mudaliar<\/a>(1)–examined\t the
\nvalidity of laws which impose taxes on sale in the: light of
\nArt. 301.  It was observed at p. 839
\n\t      “This  Article (Art. 301) is couched in  terms
\n\t      of the widest amplitude, trade, commerce\tand,
\n\t      intercourse  am  thereby\tdeclared  free\t and
\n\t      unhampered,  throughout  the story  of  India.
\n\t      The freedom of trade
\n\t      (1)   [1968] 3 S. C. R. 829.\n<\/p>\n
\t      so  declared  is\tagainst\t the  imposition  of
\n\t      barriers\tor obstructions within the state  as
\n\t      well  as\tinter-State all\t restrictions  which
\n\t      directly\tand immediately affect the  movement
\n\t      of  trade\t are,  declared by Art\t301  to\t in-
\n\t      effective.   The\textent\tto  which  Art.\t 301
\n\t      operates to make trade. and commerce free\t has
\n\t      been considered by this Court in several cases
\n\t      In  Atiabari  Tea Co. Ltd. v.,  The  State  of
\n\t      Assam and others(1) Gajendragadkar,   speaking
\n\t      for  himself and Wanchoo and Das\tGupta\tJJ.,
\n\t      observed at p. 860
\n\t      “……..we think it, would be reasonable\t and
\n\t      proper to hold that restrictions, freedom from
\n\t      which  is guaranteed by art 301 would be\tsuch
\n\t      restrictions   as,directly   and\t immediately
\n\t      restrict\tor impede the free flow or  movement
\n\t      of trade.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  Automobile Transport (Rajasthan)  Ltd  v.
\n\t      The State of Rajasthan and others<\/a>(2) the\tview
\n\t      expressed\t by Gajendragadkar, J., in  Atiabari
\n\t      Tea  Co’s case was accepted by the  majority.
\n\t      Subba  Rao, J., who agreed with the  majority
\n\t      observed that the freedom declared under\tArt.
\n\t      301  of the Constitution of India referred  to
\n\t      the  right of free movement of  trade  without
\n\t      any  obstructions by way of  barriers,  inter-
\n\t      State  or intra–State, or  other\t impediments
\n\t      operating as such barriers.  The same view was
\n\t      expressed\t in  Firm A.T.B.  Mehtab  Majid\t and
\n\t      Company v. State of Madras and Another(3) by a
\n\t      unanimous Court.\tIt must be taken as  settled
\n\t      law that the restrictions or impediments which
\n\t      directly and immediately impede or hamper\t the
\n\t      free  flow of trade commerce  and\t intercourse
\n\t      fall  within the prohibition imposed  by\tArt.
\n\t      301  and subject to the other  provisions of
\n\t      the Constitution they may be regarded as void.
\nBut it is said that by imposing tax on sales, no restriction
\nhampering  trade is imposed.  In the Atiabari Tea  Company’s
\ncase, Gajendragadkar, J., observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Taxes may and do amount to restrictions;\t but
\n\t      it   is  only  such  taxes  as  directly\t and
\n\t      immediately  restrict  trade that\t would\tfall
\n\t      within the purview of Art. 30 1. The  argument
\n\t      that all taxes should be governed by Art.\t 301
\n\t      whether  or  not\ttheir  impact  on  trade  is
\n\t      immediate\t  or  mediate,\tdirect\tor   remote,
\n\t      adopts,  in our opinion, an  extreme  approach
\n\t      which cannot be upheld.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In a recent judgment of this Court in The Andhra Sugars Ltd.
\nand Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh. and others<\/a>(4)
\n(1) [1961] 1 S.C.R. 809.\n<\/p>\n
(3)[1963] 1 S.C.R. 491.\n<\/p>\n
(2)[1963] Supp. 2 S. C. R 435.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  21 S.T.C. 212
\n419<\/span>
\nBachawat, J., speaking for the Court after referring to, the
\nobservations  made  by Gajendragadkar, J., in  Atiabari\t Tea
\nCompany’s case(1) observed
\n\t      “This  interpretation of Article 301  was\t not
\n\t      dissented\t  from\t in   Automobile   Transport
\n\t      (Rajasthan)  Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan<\/a> (2)  .
\n\t      Normally,\t a  tax on sale of  goods  does\t not
\n\t      directly impede the free movement or transport
\n\t      of goods.\t Section 21 is no exception. it does
\n\t      not  impede the free movement or transport  of
\n\t      goods and is not violative of Article 301.”
\nSection\t 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Sugar Cant (Regulation  of
\nSupply\tand  Purchase)\tAct which was  referred\t to  in\t the
\njudgment  authorised the State Government to levy a  tax  at
\nsuch rate,
\n\t      “not exceeding five rupees per metric tonne as
\n\t      may  be  prescribed on the  purchase  of\tcane
\n\t      required\tfor  use, consumption or sale  in  a
\n\t      factory.\t It must, therefore, be regarded  as
\n\t      settled  law that a tax may in  certain  cases
\n\t      directly\tand immediately restrict  or  hamper
\n\t      the flow of trade, but every imposition of tax
\n\t      does. not do so.”\n<\/p>\n
Imposition of tax of the nature of purchase tax does not  by
\nitself\trestrict freedom of trade, commerce or\tintercourse.
\nImposition  of tax may in certain circumstances impede\tfree
\nflow  oftrade,\tcommerce  or intercourse.  But\tevery  tax
\ndoesn’t have that effect. Imposition of a purchase-tax\tby
\nthe State does not by  itself  infringe the  guarantee:\t of
\nfreedom under Art.301.\n<\/p>\n
The argument that imposition of sales or purchase-tax  must
\nbe  regarded  in all cases as infringing  the  guarantee  of
\nfreedom under Art. 301 cannot be accepted as correct.
\nThe  appellant filed the petition out of which their  appeal
\narises\tsoon  after  the Station Master\t informed  the\tJute
\nMerchants   Association\t  about\t his   inability   to\tbook
\nconsignments  of  jute.\t  He has made no  averments  in\t the
\npetition which support the plea that imposition of purchase-
\ntax “directly and immediately restricts or impedes” the free
\nflow of trade.\tSince power to impose purchase tax under  S.
\n3A on notified goods is not- shown to restrict or impede the
\nfree  flow  of trade directly and immediately, it  need\t not
\nseek to derive, for its validity, support from Art. 304(b).
\nThe contention that ss. 3A & 5A are inconsistent with s.  15
\nof the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is without substance.  By
\ns. 14 of ‘the ‘Central Sales, Tax Act, 1956 certain  classes
\nof goods are declared goods of special importance in  inter-
\nState  trade  or commerce.  Jute is one of such\t classes  of
\ngoods.\tBy s. 15 as
\n(1) [1961] 1 S. C. R. 809.,
\n(2) [1963] 1 S. C. R, 491.\n<\/p>\n
420<\/span><\/p>\n
amended by the Central Sales Tax Second Amendment Act,\tXXXI
\n,of 1958 it is provided
\n\t      “Every  sales tax law of a State shall, in  so
\n\t      far as it imposes or authorises the imposition
\n\t      of a tax on the ,sale or purchase of  declared
\n\t      goods,   be   subject   to   ‘the\t   following
\n\t      restrictions and conditions, namely\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   the\t tax  payable  under  that  law\t  in
\n\t      respect of any sale of purchase of such goods
\n\t      inside  the state shall not exceed three-\t per
\n\t      cent  of the sale or purchase  price  thereof,
\n\t      and such tax shall not, be levied at more than
\n\t      one stage;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   where  a tax has been levied under\tthat
\n\t      law in respect of the sale or purchase  inside
\n\t      the state of any declared goods and such goods
\n\t      are sold in the course of inter-state trade or
\n\t      commerce, the tax so levied shall refunded  to
\n\t      such person in such manner and subject to such
\n\t      conditions  as may be provided in any  law  in
\n\t      force in that State.”\n<\/p>\n
By  S.\t15 of the Central Sales Tax Act in  respect  of\t the
\ndeclared  goods on transactions of sale or purchase the\t tax
\nleviable  is restricted to 3 % and is not leviable  at\tmore
\nthan one stage.\t There, is no dispute that the purchase\t tax
\non jute is leviable at the first point of    purchase  under
\ns. 3A of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, and the rate of tax\talso
\nis not shown to exceed the maximum prescribed by S.    15 of
\nthe Central Sales Tax Act.  The provisions of ss. 3A & 5A   of
\nthe Bihar Sales Tax Act are not therefore inconsistent\twith
\nthe provisions of s. 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act.
\nBut, in our judgment, r. 31B of the Bihar Sales Tax,  Rules,
\n1959  and the notification issued on December 26,  1967\t are
\nunauthorised  and must be struck down.\tThe Bihar Sales\t Tax
\nAct  is enacted by the Legislature to consolidate and  amend
\nthe,  law  relating  to\t the levy of tax  on  the  sale\t and
\npurchase  of  goods  in Bihar.\t The  State  Legislature  is
\ncompetent  in  enacting\t sales-tax  legislation\t to  make  a
\nprovision which is ancillary or incidental to any  provision
\nrelating to levy,; collection and recovery of sales–tax and
\npurchase-tax.  _ A provision which is made by the Act or  by
\nthe Rules which seeks to prevent evasion of liability to pay
\ntax  on\t intra–State sales or purchase would  therefore  be
\nwithin\tthe competence\tof the Legislature or the  authority
\ncompetent to make the rules . But the State Legislature\t has
\nno  power to legislate for the levy of tax  on\ttransactions
\nwhich  are carried on in the course of inter-State trade  or
\ncommerce  or  in the course of export.\tSection\t 42  of\t the
\nBihar  Sales  Tax  Act,\t 1959,\tprevents  any  person\tfrom
\ntransporting from any railway station, steamer station,
\n421<\/span>
\nair-port, post office or any other place any consignment  of
\nsuch  goods exceeding the.quantity specified with a view  to
\nensuring that ‘there is no evasion of tax payable under\t the
\nAct.   But  the power under s. 42 can only be  exercised  in
\nrespect of levy, collection and recovery of intra–State  or
\npurchase  tax.\t It cannot be utilised for  the\t purpose  of
\nensuring the effective levy of Inter State sales or purchase
\ntax.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant\tpurchased jute both within and\twithout\t the
\nState  of  Bihar.  In respect of  transactions\tof  purchase
\nwithin the State of Bihar and despatch of goods liability to
\npay  purchase-tax  at the point of purchase may\t arise.\t  In
\nrespect\t of goods which are purchased in the State  of\tWest
\nBengal\tand  brought  within the State\tof  Bihar  and\tthen
\ndespatched  to\tother States in the  course  of\t inter-State
\ntransactions  no question of levy of purchase-tax under\t the
\nBihar  Sales  Tax Act arises.  R. 31 B framed by  the  State
\nGovernment  seeks  to  prohibit transport  in  pursuance  of
\ntransactions  which  are  inter\t State,\t for  in  terms\t  it
\nprohibits  transporting\t of goods to any place\toutside\t the
\nState  of  Bihar.   Again transport of\tgoods  for  personal
\nconsumption  oil use, or of goods, gifted, pledged or  dealt
\nwith  otherwise\t than by sale, falls within  the  injunction
\ncontained in r..31B.\n<\/p>\n
The  power  of\tthe  State  Legislature\t is  restricted\t  to
\nlegislate  in respect of intra–state transactions  of\tsale
\nand purchase and to matters ancillary or incidental  thereto
\n: it has no power to legislate for levy of tax on sales\t and
\npurchase  in  the course of inter State\t transactions.\tThe,
\npower conferred by s. 42 authorising the imposition   of
\nrestriction on transport or movement of goods may only
\nbe  exercised  in respect of transactions  which  facilitate
\nlevy,\t  collection\tand   recovery\t of   tax    on
\ntransactions of intra–State sale  or purchase.- When r. 31B
\nprohibits transport of goods to any\t place\t outside
\nthe  State of Bihar unless a certificate is  obtained\tfrom
\nthe appropriate authority, it seeks to prohibit transport of
\ngoods pursuant to transactions which may not even be of\t the
\nnature\tof  sale or purchase transactions; in  any  case  it
\nrestricts transport  pursuant  to transactions\tin  the
\ncourse of inter-Statetrade  and commerce. The  operation
\nof  the rule is not restricted only to transactions  in\t the
\ncourse\t of  intra-State  trade\t and  commerce.\t  The\trule
\nauthorises  restrictions on inter-State transactions and  is
\non that account unauthorised. For the same reasons     the
\nnotification issued on December 26, 1967 must be regarded as
\nalso unauthorised.\n<\/p>\n
In the view we have taken r. 31B and the notification issued
\nbythe  State  Government  on December 26,  1967\t must  be
\ndeclared ultra vires, and since r. 31B and the\tnotification
\nare ultra vires the   communication   issued   by    the
\nSuperintendent of Commercial
\n4 22
\nTaxes  to  the\tRailway Authorities must  also\tbe  declared
\nunauthorised  A writ will therefore issue declaring  r.\t 31B
\nand  the notification issued by the Government of  Bihar  on
\nDecember 26, 1967 ultra vires, and the letter written by the
\nSuperintendent\t of   Commercial  Taxes\t  to   the   Railway
\nAuthorities is also declared unauthorised.
\nHaving regard to the circumstances, we think there should be
\nno order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\n<\/p>\n
42 3<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Hansraj Bagrecha vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 September, 1970 Bench: [J. C. Shah, K. S. Grover, Jj.] PETITIONER: HANSRAJ BAGRECHA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/09\/1970 BENCH: [J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] ACT: Constitution of India, Arts. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-245916","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHansraj Bagrecha vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 September, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hansraj Bagrecha vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 September, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1970-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-05T10:23:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hansraj Bagrecha vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 September, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-05T10:23:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970\"},\"wordCount\":3427,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970\",\"name\":\"Hansraj Bagrecha vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 September, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-05T10:23:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hansraj Bagrecha vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 September, 1970\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hansraj Bagrecha vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 September, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hansraj Bagrecha vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 September, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-05T10:23:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hansraj Bagrecha vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 September, 1970","datePublished":"1970-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-05T10:23:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970"},"wordCount":3427,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970","name":"Hansraj Bagrecha vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 September, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-05T10:23:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansraj-bagrecha-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-18-september-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hansraj Bagrecha vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 September, 1970"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245916","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=245916"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245916\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245916"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245916"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245916"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}