{"id":249635,"date":"1950-03-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1950-03-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950"},"modified":"2016-10-16T05:39:27","modified_gmt":"2016-10-16T00:09:27","slug":"ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950","title":{"rendered":"Ram Krishna Ramnath Agarwalof … vs Secretary, Municipal … on 14 March, 1950"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ram Krishna Ramnath Agarwalof … vs Secretary, Municipal … on 14 March, 1950<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1950 AIR 11, 1950 SCR 15<\/div>\n
Author: H J Kania<\/div>\n
Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAM KRISHNA RAMNATH AGARWALOF KAMPTEE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSECRETARY, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE,KAMPTEE.UNION OF INDIA AND GO\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/03\/1950\n\nBENCH:\nKANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nKANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)\nFAZAL ALI, SAIYID\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1950 AIR   11\t\t  1950 SCR   15\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1966 SC1089\t (55)\n\n\nACT:\n   Government  of India Act, 1935, es. 100, 143,  292;\tSch.\nVII,  List 1, Entry 45; List 11, Entry\t49--Central  Excises\nand Salt Act<\/a> (1 of 1944, es. 2, 3--Central Provinces Munici-\npalities Act (11 of 1922), s. 66<\/a> (1) (e)--Import of  tobacco\nwithin municipality .for manufacturing bidis--Tobacco liable\nto  Central  excise  duty--Levy of  octroi  duty  by  munic-\nipality--Legality.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Section 66<\/a> (1) (e) of the Central Provinces\t Municipali-\nties Act, 1922, empowered municipalities within the Province\nto levy an octroi duty on goods brought within their  limits\nfor sale, consumption or use within those limits.  Section 3<\/a>\nof  the\t Central Excises and Salt Act<\/a>, 1944, an Act  of\t the\nCentral Legislature, provided that there shall be levied and\ncollected duties of excise on all excisable goods other than\nsalt which were produced or manufactured  in  British India,\nand  included  tobacco in the list of excisable goods.\t The\nquestion  being whether a municipality situated in the\tCen-\ntral   Provinces could levy octroi duty on  tobacco  brought\nwithin its limits for the purpose of manufacturing bidis, in\nview  of  the exclusive power of the Central  Government  to\nlevy  excise  duty under Entry 45 of List I of\tthe  Seventh\nSchedule  to  the  Government of india Act,  1935,  and\t the\nprovisions the Central Excises and SaIt Act:\nHeld,  that  excise duty and octroi were  taxes\t essentially\ndifferent  in their nature and the power of the Province  to\nlevy  octroi  was  not inconsistent with the  power  of\t the\nCentre to levy excise duty on the some goods, and a  munici-\npality\tcould therefore validly levy an octroi duty on\tsuch\ntobacco under s. 66<\/a> (1)(e) of the Central Provinces  Munici-\npalities Act of 1922.\n    Held  further,  that there was nothing  in\tthe  Central\nExcises\t and   Salt  Act<\/a> or its provisions contrary  to\t the\nprovisions of s. 66<\/a> (1) (e) of the Central Provinces Munici-\npalities  Act or to the levy of octroi duty under  the\tsame\nand  s. 143 of the Government of India Act, therefore,\tpre-\nserved\tthe  right of the municipality to levy\toctroi\tduty\nunder the Act of 1922.\n    Province  of  Madras v. Boddu Paidanna and\tSons<\/a>  [1942]\nF.C.R..\t 90,  Governor-General\tin Council  v.\tProvince  of\nMadras\t[1942] F.C.R. 129, In re the Central  Provinces\t and\nBerar Act<\/a> No, XIV of 1938,\n16\n[1939]\tF.C.R.\t80, Miss Kishori Sherry v. The\tKing  [1949]\nF.C.R. 650 referred to.\n     Administrator, Lahore Municipality v. Daulat Ram [1942]\nF.C.R. 31 distinguished.\nJudgment of the High Court of Nagpur affirmed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    APPEAL from the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur: Case
\nNo. III of 1948.\n<\/p>\n
   This was an appeal from a judgment and order of the\tHigh
\nCourt  of  Nagpur  (Mis. Civil No. 158 of  1946)  dated\t 9th
\nApril,\t1948,  made  on a reference under s.  83<\/a>  (2)of\t the
\nCentral\t Provinces Municipalities Act (11 of. 1922)  by\t the
\nExtra Assistant Commissioner, Nagpur.  The facts of the case
\nand the arguments of counsel appear in the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     T.J. Kedar and B.B. Tawakley (Sir Narain Andley
\nwith them) for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Lobo, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    M.\t C.  Setalvad,\tAttorney-General  of   India,  (S.M.
\nSikri with him), for the Union of India.\n<\/p>\n
    1950 March, 14.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\n    KANIA  C.J.–This  is an appeal from  the  judgment\t and
\norder of the High Court at Nagpur, made on a reference under
\nSection\t 83<\/a> (2) of the Central Provinces Municipalities\t Act
\n11  of\t1922, by the EXtra Assistant  Commissioner,  Nagput.
\nThe appellant is a trader in Kamptee who manufactures bidis.
\nOn  the 30th of November, 1945, he brought to  Kamptee\tfrom
\noutside tobacco to make bidis.\tA declaration form signed on
\nhis  behalf  stated that the 254 bags of tobacco  liable  to
\noctroi\tduty, which had that day arrived at octroi post\t No.
\n3,  had\t been  brought for use and  consumption\t within\t the
\nlimits\tof the Municipality.  He however put on\t record\t his
\nprotest against the recovery of the duty which was fixed  at
\nRs.  1,128-2-0.\t Against the order claiming the amount,\t the
\nappellant filed an appeal to the Extra Assistant Commission-
\ner with revenue appellate powers, Nagput. He contended\tthat
\nthe  municipality claimed to levy the duty under Section  66<\/a>
\n(1) (e) of the Municipal Act, but they had
\n17<\/span>
\nno right to do so as under Section 3<\/a> of the Central  Excises
\nand  Salt Act<\/a>, 1944, that excise duty was levied on  tobacco
\nby the Central Government and the levy of the octroi duty on
\nthe  tobacco in question was covered by the excise duty\t and
\ntherefore  not permissible. The Appellate Assistant  Commis-
\nsioner\tin  making the reference to the\t Nagpur\t High  Court
\nexpressed  his opinion that the appellant’s contention\tthat
\nas the bidis were not sold within the municipal limits, duty
\nwas  not  leviable, was unsound.  He  however  thought\tthat
\nbecause\t under Section a of the Excise Act<\/a>, excise duty\t was
\nlevied by the Central Government the levy of the octroi duty
\nwas ‘not in consonance with Section 100 of the Government of
\nIndia Act, 1935, and was ultra vires the Provincial  Govern-
\nment. The High Court rejected the appellant’s contention and
\ndisagreed  with the view of the Appellate Commissioner.\t The
\nHigh  Court however granted a certificate under Section\t 205<\/a>
\n(1)  of the Constitution Act<\/a> and the appellant has  come  in
\nappeal to this Court.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Central Provinces Municipalities Act was passed  in
\n1922  and  the relevant notifications fixing  the  rates  of
\noctroi\tduty  were issued in 1928.  No\tquestion  about\t the
\nvalidity  of  the Act when passed, or of  the  notifications
\nissued in pursuance thereof has been raised before us.\t The
\nargument  on  behalf of the appellant is that as  under\t the
\nCentral\t Excises  and Salt Act<\/a>, I of  1944,  tobacco  became
\nexcisable  goods under Item 9 in Schedule I to that Act\t and
\ncontinued  to  be so till it got converted into\t bidis,\t the
\nCentral Government alone was entitled to levy excise duty on
\nit till then.  According to the definition of  ‘manufacture’
\nin the Excise Act<\/a> that duty could be levied at any stage  in
\nthe  manufacture  of bidis and therefore  any  tax  imposed,
\nwhile  tobacco\twas being converted into bidis,\t was  excise
\nduty.  Legislation in connection with excise duty is  within
\nthe  exclusive province of the Central Legislature as  shown
\nby  Entry 45 of List I in Schedule VII of  the\tConstitution
\nAct. The impost of octroi duty in pursuance of the Municipal
\nAct, before tobacco was made into bidis, is it was argued in
\nconflict with the legislative powers of the Centre. In this
\n18<\/span>
\nconnection  our attention was drawn to Administrator  Lahore
\nMunicipality  v. Daulat Ram Kapur(1), in which it  was\theld
\nthat  the  levy of octroi duty on salt was  not\t within\t the
\npowers\tof the Provincial legislature. It was argued  there-
\nfore that under Section 100 of the Government of  India Act,
\noctroi\tduty levied on tobacco under the legislative  powers
\nof  the Provincial Government was invalid.  The only way  to
\nreconcile  the two Entries, namely, Entry 45 in List  I\t and
\nEntry 49 in List II of the Seventh Schedule, was to read the
\nwords  “for consumption or use” in Entry 49 as\tmeaning\t for
\nconsumption  or\t use  except for  manufacture  of  excisable
\narticles”. So read, the levy of octroi duty on the facts  of
\nthis  case was invalid.\t In reply to the argument that\tSec-
\ntion  292 of the Government of India Act kept alive the\t old
\nProvincial legislation, namely, the Central Provinces Munic-
\nipalities  Act, and the right to levy octroi duty was  saved
\nunder  Section 143<\/a> of the Constitution Act, it was urged  on
\nbehalf\tof the appellant that the. provisions of the  Excise
\nAct<\/a>  were contrary to the right to levy octroi duty  and  as
\nthat  Act was passed in 1944 the right to levy\toctroi\tduty
\nsaved by Section 148<\/a> of the Constitution Act had lapsed.  It
\nwas  argued that although there was no express provision  in
\nthe Excise Act<\/a> to that effect, the definition of  “excisable
\ngoods” and “manufacture” read with Entry 9 in Schedule I and
\nthe  charging Section 3<\/a> in the Act led to  that\t conclusion.
\nIt is clear that both parts of this argument are thus  based
\non the plea that the impost of any duty at any stage  before
\nbidis are manufactured is excise duty and therefore the levy
\nof octroi duty is illegal.\n<\/p>\n
    Section 66<\/a> (1) (e) of the Central Provinces\t Municipali-
\nties Act, 1922, runs as follows :–\n<\/p>\n
    “an\t octroi\t on  animals, or goods\tbrought\t within\t the
\nlimits\tof  the municipality for sale,\tconsumption  or\t use
\nwithin those limits;”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t words “excisable goods” and. ” manufacture  ”\t are
\ndefined\t in Section 2<\/a> of the Central Excises and Salt  Act<\/a>,,
\n1944,. as follows .–.’
\n(1) [1942] F.C.R. 91 .\n<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
    2.\t(d) “excisable goods” means goods specified  in\t the
\nFirst  Schedule\t as being subject to a duty  of\t excise\t and
\nincludes salt;”\n<\/p>\n
 2.  (f)  “manufacture” includes any process  incidental  or
\nancillary to the completion of a manufactured product; and\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  in relation to tobacco includes the preparation of
\ncigarettes,   cigars,  cherots, bidis, cigarette or pipe  or
\nhokkah tobacco, chewingtobacco or snuff; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  ……\n<\/p>\n
Section 3<\/a> of the Excise Act runs as follows :–\n<\/p>\n
    “There  shall be levied and collected in such manner  as
\nmay  be prescribed duties of excise on all  excisable  goods
\nother than salt which are produced or manufactured in  Brit-
\nish  India, and a duty on salt manufactured in, or  imported
\nby land into any part of British India as, and at the rates,
\nset forth in the First Schedule\t ……\t ”\n<\/p>\n
    Entry  9 to the First Schedule of the Excise Act  is  in
\nthese terms :–\n<\/p>\n
   “9.\tTOBACCO, CURED-\n<\/p>\n
   ”  Tobacco’ means any form of tobacco, whether  cured  or
\nuncured,  and whether manufactured or not,and  includes\t the
\nleaf,  stalks  and stem of the tobacco plant  but  does\t not
\ninclude any part of a tobacco plant while still attached  to
\nthe earth;”\n<\/p>\n
(Then follows a list of various articles into which  tobacco
\ncan  be converted, like bidis, cigarettes,  snuff,etc.\twith
\ndifferent rates of duty mentioned against each article.)
\nSections 143 and 292 of the Government of India
\nAct, 1935, run as follows :–\n<\/p>\n
  “143.\t  (1) Nothing in the foregoing provisions.  of\tthis
\nChapter affects any duties or taxes levied in any  Federated
\nState  otherwise  than by virtue of an Act  of\tthe  Federal
\nLegislature applying in the State.\n<\/p>\n
      (2)  Any taxes, duties, cesses or fees which,  immedi-
\nately before the commencement of Part III,of this Act
\n20<\/span>
\nwere  being  lawfully levied by any  Provincial\t Government,
\nmunicipality  or other local authority or body for the\tpur-
\nposes of the Province, municipality, district or other local
\narea  under  a\tlaw in force on the first  day\tof  January,
\nnineteen hundred and thirty-five, may, notwithstanding\tthat
\nthose  taxes,  duties, cesses or lees are mentioned  in\t the
\nFederal\t Legislative List, continue to be levied and  to  be
\napplied to the same purposes until provision to the contrary
\nis made by the Federal Legislature”.\n<\/p>\n
  “292.\t  Notwithstanding  the\trepeal by this\tAct  of\t the
\nGovernment of India Act, but subject to the other provisions
\nof  this Act, all the law in force in British India  immedi-
\nately before the commencement of Part III of this Act  shall
\ncontinue in force in British India until altered or repealed
\nor  amended  by a competent legislature or  other  competent
\nauthority.”\n<\/p>\n
     Section  143<\/a>  can be considered in two  ways.   If\t the
\nGovernment of India Act did not bring the particular  impost
\nof  tax by the Provincial Government within the\t legislative
\npowers of the Centre, by reason of the inclusion of such tax
\nin List I of the Seventh Schedule, the pre-existing right of
\nthe  Provincial Government to levy such tax  remained  unaf-
\nfected.\t If so, Section 143  of the Government of India\t Act
\ndid not affect such legislation and the same continued to be
\nvalid  and operative under Section 202<\/a> of  the\tConstitution
\nAct.  If  however the levy of .such tax\t by  the  Provincial
\nGovernment  was\t a subject which  was within  the  exclusive
\nlegislative power of the Centre by reason of such tax  being
\nincluded in List I of the Seventh Schedule, the levy of such
\ntax  under the Provincial legislation continued to be  valid
\nuntil  the Central Legislature passed an Act the  provisions
\nwhereof\t were contrary to the provisions of  the  Provincial
\nlegislature  or\t to the levy of a tax under  the  Provincial
\nAct<\/a>.  Examining\t next the contentions of  the  appellant  it
\nseems  clear  that octroi duty as levied by  the  respondent
\ncomes within the exact wording of Entry 49 of List 11 of the
\nSeventh.  Schedule  to the Constitution Act<\/a>.   Prima  facie,
\ntherefore, there is no reason, to
\n21<\/span>
\nconsider  the levy of the octroi duty under  the  Provincial
\nlegislation  invalid.\tSuch  levy  remained  unaffected  by
\nreason of Section 292<\/a> of the Constitution Act. The  argument
\nof  the appellant is that the levy of the octroi duty  being
\nat a stage after the excisable article, viz., tobacco,\tcame
\ninto  existence and became liable to excise duty  under\t the
\nExcise\tAct<\/a>, the levy of octroi duty before bidis were\tmade
\nfrom  tobacco, is invalid. In support of this  argument\t the
\ndefinition of ‘excisable goods’, ‘manufacture’ and the Entry
\n9  in the Schedule to that Act were relied upon.  The  error
\nunderlying  the argument of the appellant is the  assumption
\nthat  any  impost  of tax from the time\t tobacco  came\tinto
\nexistence  till the same was converted into bidis is  neces-
\nsarily excise duty.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Federal Court had to consider the  distinction\t be-
\ntween  the duty of excise and a tax on sale in The  Province
\nof  Madras  v. Boddu Paidanna and Sons<\/a>(1). It is  there\t ob-
\nserved as follows:–“Plainly, a tax levied on the first sale
\nmust,  in the nature of things, be a tax on the sale by\t the
\nmanufacturer  or  producer; but it is levied  upon  him\t qua
\nseller and not qua manufacturer or producer.  It may well be
\nthat  ‘a  manufacturer\tor  producer  is  sometimes   doubly
\nhit  ……  If the tax-payer who pays a sales tax is also a
\nmanufacturer or producer of commodities subject to a central
\nduty  of  excise, there may no doubt be overlapping  in\t one
\nsense,\tbut there is no overlapping in law.  The  two  taxes
\nwhich  he is called on to pay are economically two  separate
\nand  distinct  imposts.\t  There is, in\ttheory,\t nothing  to
\nprevent\t the  Central Legislature from imposing\t a  duty  of
\nexcise on a commodity as soon as it comes into existence, no
\nmatter\twhat happens to it afterwards, whether it  be  sold,
\nconsumed,  destroyed, or given away  ……  It is the\tfact
\nof  manufacture which attracts the duty even though ‘it\t may
\nbe collected later.  In the case of a sales tax, the liabil-
\nity  to tax arises on the occasion of a sale and a sale\t has
\nno  necessary  connection with manufacture  or\tproduction.”
\nThe Court further observed that in the Constitution Act<\/a>\t the
\nwhole
\n(1) [1942] F.C.R. 90.\n<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
of  the\t taxing power in this particular  sphere  (power  to
\nimpose\tduties of excise) is  expressly apportioned  between
\nthe Centre and the Provinces, to the one being assigned\t the
\npower to impose duties of excise, to the other taxes on\t the
\nsale  of goods.\t It is natural enough, when considering\t the
\nambit  of  an express power in relation\t to  an\t unspecified
\nresiduary  power,  to  give a broad  interpretation  to\t the
\nformer\tat the expense of the latter.  The case\t however  is
\ndifferent  where  as in the Constitution Act<\/a> there  are\t two
\ncomplementary powers,each expressed in precise and  definite
\nterms.\t There can be no reason in such a case for giving  a
\nbroader\t interpretation\t to  one power rather  than  to\t the
\nother;\tand there is certainly no reason for  extending\t the
\nmeaning of the expression “duties of excise” at the  expense
\nof the Provincial power to levy taxes on the sale of goods.
\n  In  The  Governor-General in Council v.  The\tProvince  of
\nMadras (1), the Judicial Committee approved of the  distinc-
\ntion drawn in this case between the excise duty and a tax on
\nsale.\tThere  the question arose in respect of tax  on\t the
\nsale  of excisable goods.  Their Lordships observed as\tfol-
\nlows :–” An exhaustive discussion of this subject  (namely,
\nthe  meaning  of the term duty of excise )from\twhich  their
\nLordships  have obtained valuable assistance is to be  found
\nin  the\t judgment  of the Federal Court in  Re\tThe  Central
\nProvinces  and Berar Act<\/a> No. XIV of  1938(2).\tConsistently
\nwith  this  decision their Lordships are of opinion  that  a
\nduty of excise is primarily a duty levied on a\tmanufacturer
\nor  producer  in respect of the\t commodity  manufactured  or
\nproduced.  It is a tax on goods not on sales or the proceeds
\nof  sale of goods.  Here, again,their Lordships\t find  them-
\nselves in complete accord with the reasoning and conclusions
\nof  the\t Federal Court in Boddu Paidann case  (3).  The\t two
\ntaxes,\tthe one levied on a manufacturer in respect  of\t his
\ngoods, the other on a vendor in respect of his sales, may,as
\nis  there  pointed out, in one sense overlap.\tBut  in\t law
\nthere is no overlapping. The taxes are separate and
\n   (1) [1942] F.C.R. 129.\t   (3) [1942] F.C.R. 90
\n   (2) [1939] F.C.R. 80.\n<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
distinct  imposts.  If\tin fact they overlap,  that  may  be
\nbecause\t the  taxing authority, imposing a duty\t of  excise,
\nfinds  it convenient to impose that duty at the moment\twhen
\nthe excisable article leaves the factory or workshop for the
\nfirst time on the occasion of its sale.\t But that method  of
\ncollecting  the tax is an accident of administration; it  is
\nnot of the essence of the duty of excise, which is attracted
\nby  the\t manufacture  itself.  That this is  so\t is  clearly
\nexemplified in those excepted cases in which the Provincial,
\nnot  the Federal, legislature has power to impose    a\tduty
\nof excise.  In such cases there appears to be  no reason why
\nthe  Provincial\t legislature  should not impose\t a  duty  of
\nexcise\tin respect of the commodity manufactured and then  a
\ntax on first or other sales of the same commodity.   Whether
\nor  not\t such a course is followed appears to  be  merely  a
\nmatter\tof  administrative  convenience. So,  by  parity  of
\nreasoning,  may\t the Federal Legislature impose\t a  duty  of
\nexcise on the manufacture of excisable goods and the Provin-
\ncial legislature impose a tax on the sale of the same  goods
\nwhen manufactured.”\n<\/p>\n
    This discussion clearly shows that the relevant question
\nis  what is the nature of the tax. Excise duty is a  tax  on
\nmanufactured  goods.   Octroi duty is a tax  levied  on\t the
\nentry  of goods within a particular area. Under\t the  Excise
\nAct<\/a>,  tobacco becomes excisable goods within the meaning  of
\nItem 9 in the Schedule.\t The subsequent use of such manufac-
\ntured.\tgoods in making different articles only affects\t the
\nrate  of tax.  Therefore, tobacco becomes subject to  excise
\nduty  when it reaches the stage of manufacture mentioned  in
\nItem 9 of the Schedule to the Excise Act<\/a>.  Even before it is
\nconverted  into bidis or any other article mentioned in\t the
\nentry it has become excisable goods and liable to pay excise
\nduty.  The  levy of such duty is therefore not\tin  conflict
\nwith the levy of an impost on the entry of the goods within
\na certain area.\n<\/p>\n
    It was argued that under the rules framed by the Govern-
\nment  under the Central Excises and Salt Act<\/a>, 1944,  Govern-
\nment retained control over the movement of the
\n24<\/span>
\ngoods from the beginning till the end.\tThis argument is not
\nof  assistance in determining the nature of the octroi\ttax.
\nAs  Government\thas to collect excise duty and the  rate  of
\nduty  varies  in respect of different shapes  in  which\t the
\nexcisable  goods are ultimately converteD, there is  nothing
\nunnatural  in the Government keeping a control and  note  of
\nthe articles till the manufactured article becomes a commod-
\nity, and is mixed up with the commodities used by the people
\nat  large.  The argument that Entry 49 in List 11  being  in
\nconflict  with Entry 45 in List I of Schedule Seven  to\t the
\nConstitution  Act<\/a>, Entry 49 should be read as “for  consump-
\ntion or use, except for manufacture of goods”, in our  opin-
\nion,  is  unsound. In the first place, the approach  to\t the
\nquestion  itself  is wrong. When  a  particular\t legislation
\nfalls  within the exact words of an Entry in the  Provincial
\nList,  under  section 100<\/a> it is valid and   no\tquestion  of
\nreconciliation\tarises.\t  A  similar  argument\tadvanced  in
\nregard to a supposed conflict between Entry 19 of List I and
\nEntry  31  of List II was rejected by us in Case No.  27  of
\n1949:  Miss Kishori Shetty v. The King<\/a> (1).  In the  present
\ncase  if  the  question of the validity\t of  the  Provincial
\nlegislation  arises,  on the interpretation of Entry  49  in
\nList II, it appears that the answer must be in favour of the
\nvalidity of the legislation.  The decision in Administrator,
\nLahore Municipality v. Daulat Ram Kapur(2) does not help the
\nappellant  because in that case Entry 47 in List I  is\tonly
\n“salt”.\t  A  comparison with Entry 45 in List I\t shows\tdis-
\ntinctly\t that Entry 45 is limited to excise duty and is\t not
\nwide  enough to cover tobacco or other goods  generally\t for
\nall  purposes of legislation. The observations in that\tcase
\ntherefore are not helpful to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     On the second part of the contention the appellant\t can
\nsucceed\t only if he establishes that the provisions  of\t the
\nExcise\tAct<\/a>  are contrary to the levy and recovery  of\tduty
\nunder the Provincial Act<\/a> of 1922. There is no express provi-
\nsion  in  the Excise Act<\/a> contrary to the provisions  of\t the
\nMunicipal Act.\tUnless, therefore, it is necessarily implied
\nunder the Excise Act<\/a>, the levy of
\n(1) [1949] F.C.R. 650\t\t (1) [1942] F.C.R. 31
\n25<\/span>
\nthe  octroi  duty under the Municipal Act  continues  to  be
\nvalid.\tOn this point again the appellant’s argument is that
\nthe levy of a duty at any stage of the manufacture of  bidis
\nout  01\t tobacco would be the levy of the  excise  duty\t and
\ntherefore  those provisions were contrary to the  provisions
\npermitting  the\t levy of the octroi duty.  We  have  already
\ndiscussed  and\trejected in the first part of  the  judgment
\nthis contention.  It is wrong to think that two\t independent
\nimposts\t arising  from two different sets  of  circumstances
\nwere not permitted in law. In our opinion, therefore,  there
\nis nothing in the Excise Act<\/a> to make its provisions contrary
\nto  the\t provisions  of Section 66<\/a> (1) (e)  of\tthe  Central
\nProvinces  Municipalities Act or to the levy of octroi\tduty
\nunder the same. The appeal therefore fails and is  dismissed
\nwith costs.\n<\/p>\n
    Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the appellants: Rajinder Narain.
\nAgent for the respondent: S.P. Varma.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the Union of India: P.A. Mehta.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ram Krishna Ramnath Agarwalof … vs Secretary, Municipal … on 14 March, 1950 Equivalent citations: 1950 AIR 11, 1950 SCR 15 Author: H J Kania Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj) PETITIONER: RAM KRISHNA RAMNATH AGARWALOF KAMPTEE Vs. RESPONDENT: SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE,KAMPTEE.UNION OF INDIA AND GO DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/03\/1950 BENCH: KANIA, […]<\/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-249635","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Krishna Ramnath Agarwalof ... vs Secretary, Municipal ... on 14 March, 1950 - 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\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Krishna Ramnath Agarwalof ... vs Secretary, Municipal ... on 14 March, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950\" \/>\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=\"1950-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-16T00:09:27+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Krishna Ramnath Agarwalof … vs Secretary, Municipal … on 14 March, 1950\",\"datePublished\":\"1950-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-16T00:09:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950\"},\"wordCount\":3345,\"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\\\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950\",\"name\":\"Ram Krishna Ramnath Agarwalof ... vs Secretary, Municipal ... on 14 March, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1950-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-16T00:09:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Krishna Ramnath Agarwalof … vs Secretary, Municipal … on 14 March, 1950\"}]},{\"@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":"Ram Krishna Ramnath Agarwalof ... vs Secretary, Municipal ... on 14 March, 1950 - 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\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Krishna Ramnath Agarwalof ... vs Secretary, Municipal ... on 14 March, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1950-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-16T00:09:27+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Krishna Ramnath Agarwalof … vs Secretary, Municipal … on 14 March, 1950","datePublished":"1950-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-16T00:09:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950"},"wordCount":3345,"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\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950","name":"Ram Krishna Ramnath Agarwalof ... vs Secretary, Municipal ... on 14 March, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1950-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-16T00:09:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-krishna-ramnath-agarwalof-vs-secretary-municipal-on-14-march-1950#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Krishna Ramnath Agarwalof … vs Secretary, Municipal … on 14 March, 1950"}]},{"@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\/249635","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=249635"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249635\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249635"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249635"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249635"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}