{"id":2976,"date":"1961-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961"},"modified":"2018-01-04T18:11:14","modified_gmt":"2018-01-04T12:41:14","slug":"bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961","title":{"rendered":"Bangalore Woollen, Cotton And … vs Corporation Of The City Of … on 5 April, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bangalore Woollen, Cotton And … vs Corporation Of The City Of … on 5 April, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 562, \t\t 1961 SCR Supl. (3) 707<\/div>\n
Author: K L.<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, S.K., Kapur, J.L., Hidayatullah, M., Shah, J.C., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBANGALORE   WOOLLEN,  COTTON  AND  SILK\t MILLS\tCO.    LTD.,\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCORPORATION  OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE, BY ITS  COMMISSIONER,\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n05\/04\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nDAS, S.K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR  562\t\t  1961 SCR  Supl. (3) 707\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1966 SC1686\t (9)\n RF\t    1981 SC 991\t (10)\n RF\t    1987 SC1059\t (18)\n\n\nACT:\nMunicipality--Octroi--Constitutionality of--Final resolution\nfor  levying not published in Official\tGazette--Defect,  if\ncan  be validated--City of Bangalore  Municipal\t Corporation\nAct,  1949  (69 of 1949), ss. 38(1)(b), 98, 1O3,  Sch.\tIII,\nPart V, Classes I to VIII--Constitution of India, Arts. 276,\n301--Government\t of India Act, 1935 (26 Geo.  V, Ch. 2),  s.\n142--A.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellants in the two appeals and petitioners under Art.\n32  of the Constitution challenged the constitutionality  of\nthe  imposition\t of octroi duty on cotton and  wool  on\t the\ngrounds that (1) the failure to notify the final  resolution\nof  the imposition of the tax in the Government\t Gazette  as\nrequired  by  s. 98(2) of the City  of\tBangalore  Municipal\nCorporation  Act  was fata I to the tax, and  that  (2)\t the\nimposition  of\tthe  tax offended Art. 276  or\t301  of\t the\nConstitution.\nHeld,  that the impugned octroi duty did not contravene\t the\nprovisions of Arts. 276 and 301 of the Constitution.\nHamdard\t Dawakhana  (Wakf) v. The Union of  India<\/a>  [1960]  2\nS.C.R. 671, held inapplicable.\nAtiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. The State of Assam<\/a> [1961] 1  S.C.R.\n809, referred to.\nsection\t 38(1)(b)  of  the  Act\t validated  any\t defect\t  or\nirregularity  in proceedings taken under the Act  which\t did\nnot  affect the merits of the case.  The failure to  publish\nthe  final  resolution\tdid not affect\tthe  merits  of\t the\nimposition of the tax and was therefore not fatal to it.\nThe mere fact that S. 38(1)(b) occurred in a chapter dealing\nwith Municipal Authorities or the other parts of the Section\ndealt  with another subject was no reason for confining\t its\noperation to those subjects only.\nHarla  v. State of Rajasthan<\/a> [1952] S.C.R. 110 and State  of\nKerala v.  P. J. Joseph A.I.R.<\/a> 1958 S.C. 296, referred to.\nThe  contention that the impugned tax contravened  the\tpro-\nvisions of Art. 276 of the Constitution was not sustainable.\nEntry 52 in List II of the Constitution and entry 49 in\t the\nGovernment  of\tIndia Act, 1935, which relate  to  taxes  on\nentry  of goods into a local area are not affected  by\tArt.\n272 of the Constitution and\n708\ns.   142-A of the Government of India Act, which are similar\nto each other and relate only to a distinct head of taxation\ni.e., taxes on professions, trades and callings etc.\nThe  Municipality  of Chopda v.\t Motilal  Manekchand  I.L.R.\n[1958]\tBom,  483,  Gajadhar Hiralal  Ginning  and  Pressing\nFactory\t v.  The Municipal Committee, Washim  I.L.R.  [1958]\nBom. 628 and Secretary, Municipal Committee, Karanja v.\t The\nNew East India Press Co. Ltd., Bombay A.I.R. 1949 Nag.\t215,\ndistinguished.\nClasses\t I  to VII in Schedule III of Part  V  make  certain\nspecified  articles  taxable and Class VIII  makes  \"  other\narticles which are not specified\" taxable if approved by the\nCorporation The combined effect of ss. 97 and 130 and Part V\nof Schedule III including Class VIII is that the words\tused\nare of very general nature and would have the same effect as\nif all articles were intended to be and were included.\nAnwarkhan Mahboob Co. v. The State of Bombay<\/a> [1961] 1 S.C.R.\n709, followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeals Nos. 448 and 449
\nof 1957
\n\t\t\t with
\nWrit Petitions Nos. 97 and 107 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t from  the judgment and order  dated  September\t 27,
\n1956, of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 44 and
\n45 of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
M.   C.\t  Setalvad,  Attorney-General  for  India,’  N.\t  C.
\nChatterjee,  D.\t N.  Mukherjee\tand B.\tN.  Ghose,  for\t the
\nappellant  in  C.  A.  No. 448\/57  and\tPetitioner  in\tWrit
\nPetition No. 97\/1961.\n<\/p>\n
M.   C.\t  Setalvad,  Attorney-General  for  India,   V.\t  L.
\nNarasimhamoorty,  S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji,  Rameshwar
\nNath and P. L. Vohra, for appellant in C. A. No. 449157\t and
\nPetitioners in W. P. No. 107 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
A.   V.\t  Viswanatha   Sastri  and  K.\tR.   Choudhri,\t for
\nrespondents in C. As.  Nos. 448 and 449 of 57 and W.   Pa.
\nNos. 97 and 107\/1961.\n<\/p>\n
1961.  April 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nKAPUR.,\t J.-A  Divisional  Bench  of  this,  Court  made   a
\nreference* under the proviso to Cl. (3) of Art. 145 on\tthe.
\nfollowing two points:-\n<\/p>\n
(1)  Whether the imposition in the present caw offends\tArt.
\n276 or 301 of the Constitution ?\n<\/p>\n
*See p. 698 ante.\n<\/p>\n
709<\/span><\/p>\n
(2)  Whether  the failure to notify the final resolution  of
\nthe  imposition\t of the tax in the  Government,\t Gazette  is
\nfatal to the tax ?\n<\/p>\n
The  facts  of\tthe case are set out in\t the  order  of\t the
\nDivisional Bench and it is unnecessary to restate them.\t The
\nappellants in the two appeals and in the two petitions under
\nArt. 32 are challenging the constitutionality of the  octroi
\nduty   on  cotton  and\twool  imposed  by   the\t  respondent
\nCorporation  within  its octroi limits.\t The  procedure\t for
\nlevying\t municipal  taxes  and\tthe  power  of\tcontrol\t  of
\nGovernment in regard to those taxes is laid down in s. 98 of
\nthe  City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act (Act 69  of
\n1949)  hereinafter termed the Act.  The procedure is that  a
\nresolution intending to impose a tax has to be passed by the
\nCorporation and that resolution is required to be  published
\nin  the Official Gazette and in the local  newspapers.\t The
\nrate payers can then submit objections and after considering
\nsuch  objections  received  during the\tspecified  time\t the
\nCorporation  may by resolution determine to levy the tax  or
\nduty.\t When  such  a\tresolution  has\t been\tpassed\t the
\nCommissioner is required to publish forthwith a notification
\nin the Official Gazette and in the newspapers as set out  in
\nsub-s.\t(1)  of s. 98 of the Act.  This notification  is  to
\nspecify\t the  date  from which, the rate at  which  and\t the
\nperiod of levy, if any, for which such tax is levied.
\nAs has been stated in the order of the Divisional Bench\t all
\nother  requirements of s. 98 were complied with except\tthat
\nthe  notification in the Government Gazette as\trequired  by
\nsub-s. (2) was not published.  This, it was submitted, was a
\ndefect which was fatal to the legality of the imposition  of
\nthe tax.  To support this submission reliance was placed  on
\ntwo  judgments of this Court in Harla v. State of  Rajasthan<\/a>
\n(1) and State of Kerala v. P. J. Joseph<\/a> (2).  In the  former
\ncase the-Jaipur Opium Act was enacted by a resolution of the
\nCouncil\t  of   Ministers  appointed  by\t  the\tthen   Crown
\nRepresentative\tbut  this law was  neither  promulgated\t nor
\npublished in the Gazette nor made known to the public.\t The
\nmere passing of the resolution by the
\n(1) [1052] S.C.R. 110,
\n(2) A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 296,
\n710<\/span>
\nCouncil of Ministers without publication was held not to  be
\nsufficient  to\tmake the law operative.\t At p. 114,  it\t was
\nobserved  that\treasonable  publication\t of  some  sort\t was
\nnecessary  and that natural justice required that  before  a
\nlaw could operate it had to be promulgated or published\t and
\nit must be broadcast in some recognizable way.\tSimilarly in
\nthe  latter case there was no publication in the Gazette  of
\nthe  Order  of the Government made in the  exercise  of\t the
\npower conferred by an Act nor was there any communication of
\nthe  order  to the person affected thereby and it  was\theld
\nthat  not  having been published in the Gazette it  was\t not
\nvalid  and  could  not\thave the  force\t of  law.   But\t the
\nrespondent  relied upon s. 38(1)(b) of the Act\twhich  cures
\ndefects\t or irregularities not affecting the merits  of\t the
\ncase.  That section provides:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      S.    38(1).   ”\tNo act done,  or  proceeding
\n\t      taken  under  this  Act  shall  be  questioned
\n\t      merely on the ground-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)…………………………………………….\n<\/p>\n
(b) of any defect or irregularity in such act or proceeding,
\nnot  affecting\tthe merits of the case.\t ” Thus\t under\tthat
\nprovision  any\tdefect\tor irregularity\t not  affecting\t the
\nmerits\tof the case saves any act done or  proceeding  taken
\nunder the Act on the ground of such irregularity or  defect.
\nThe appellants contended that the section has no application
\nto defects in regard to procedure under s. 98 of the Act for
\nthe imposition of taxes because s. 38 read as a whole refers
\nto  a  different  situation  and  that\tthere  was  internal
\nevidence  in  the  section itself to show  that\t it  has  no
\nrelevance  to  the objection taken by the  appellants.\t The
\nsection,  it  was  argued, is in  Chapter  11  dealing\twith
\nMunicipal  Authorities and this particular provision  is  in
\nthat Part of the Chapter which deals with provisions  common
\nto  the\t Corporation  and its Standing\tCommittees  and\t the
\nmarginal  note shows that the object of enacting it was\t the
\nvalidation  of\tproceedings  of\t the  Corporation  and\t its
\nStanding  Committees  and that the whole section  should  be
\nread  in  that\tcontext.  So read,  it\twas  submitted,\t the
\nsection\t must  be taken to be.,% saving\t provision  for\t the
\nvalidity of proceedings
\n711<\/span>
\nof the Municipal Authorities which was clear from cl. (a) of
\nsub-s.\t(1)  which  deals with defects on the  B  ground  of
\nvacancy or defect in the constitution of the Corporation  or
\nof any Standing Committee and subs. (2) of that section also
\nhas  reference\tto  the\t meetings  of  the  Corporation\t and
\ntherefore,  it was contended, I the defect  or\tirregularity
\nmentioned  in cl. (b) of sub,section (1) in any act done  or
\nproceeding  taken also must have reference to that  kind  of
\ndefect\twhich is referred to in other parts of the  section.
\nIt was further submitted that the words ” not affecting\t the
\nmerits\tof the case ” showed that the reference was  not  to
\nany  defect  in regard to the procedure\t for  imposition  of
\ntaxes but defects etc. which might arise in the\t proceedings
\nof  the Corporation and which have reference to a defect  in
\nthe   constitution  of\tthe  Corporation  or  its   Standing
\nCommittees.  Reference was also made to the marginal note in
\nthe section.\n<\/p>\n
It  is unnecessary in this case to discuss the relevance  of
\nmarginal notes in the construction of s. 38(1)(b) because in
\nour  opinion  the language is unambiguous and clear  and  it
\nvalidates  any defect in any act done or  proceedings  taken
\nunder  the Act and makes it immune from being questioned  on
\nthe  ground  of any defect or irregularity in  such  act  or
\nproceedings not affecting the merits of the case and  merely
\nbecause\t  it  is  in  a\t chapter  dealing   with   Municipal
\nAuthorities  or\t other\tparts of the  section  dealing\twith
\nanother subject is no reason for confining its operation  to
\nthe defects con. tended for by the appellants.
\nThe  resolution\t was published in newspapers  and  was\talso
\ncommunicated  to those affected by it and thus it  was\twell
\nknown.\tThe failure to publish it in the Government  Gazette
\ndid not affect the merits of its imposition.  The answer  to
\nquestion  No. 2 referred therefore is that the mere  failure
\nto notify the final resolution of the imposition of the\t tax
\nin  the Government Gazette is not fatal to the\tlegality  of
\nthe imposition.\n<\/p>\n
The  other  question  referred\tis  whether  the  imposition
\noffends Art. 276 or 301 of the Constitution,
\n712<\/span>
\nArticle 276 as far as it is relevant for the purposes of
\nthis case provides:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      Art.  276(1)  ”  Notwithstanding\tanything  in
\n\t      article  246, no law of the Legislature  of  a
\n\t      State relating to taxes for the benefit of the
\n\t      State  or of a municipality, district,  board,
\n\t      local   board  or\t other\tlocal\t   authority
\n\t      therein  in  respect of  professions,  trades,
\n\t      callings\tor employments shall be\t invalid  on
\n\t      the ground that it relates to a tax on income.
\n\t      (2)   The\t total amount payable in respect  of
\n\t      any  one\tperson to the State or\tto  any\t one
\n\t      municipality,  district board, local board  or
\n\t      other  local authority in the State by way  of
\n\t      taxes  on\t professions, trades,  callings\t and
\n\t      employment  shall not exceed two\thundred\t and
\n\t      fifty rupees per annum.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  was\t contended that the imposition of the  impugned\t tax
\ncontravenes  the provision of Art. 276(2) as it is of a\t sum
\nmore  than Rs. 250 and is therefore unconstitutional.\tThis
\ncontention  is\tnot  well founded.   There  ‘was  a  similar
\nprovision  in  the Government of India Act, 1935,  i.e.,  s.
\n142-A  but there the amount mentioned in sub-s. (2) was\t Rs.
\n50  per annum and this limitation was placed as\t from  after
\nthe 31st day of March, 1939.  A reference to the legislative
\nlists will show that neither the Article 276 nor s. 142-A of
\nthe Government of India Act, 1935, has any reference to\t the
\ntax  now  impugned.   In  the  Devolution  Rules  under\t the
\nGovernment  of India Act, 1915, taxes which could be  levied
\nfor the purpose of local bodies were  the following:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      ” Item No. 7. An octroi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Item  No. 8. A terminal tax on goods  imported
\n\t      into or exported from, a local area save where
\n\t      such  tax is first imposed in a local area  in
\n\t      which  an octroi was not levied on  or  before
\n\t      the 6th July 1917.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Item  No. 9. A tax on trades, professions\t and
\n\t      callings.\t ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      In  the  Government of India  Act,  1935,\t the
\n\t      relevant entries in the Legislative List–List
\n\t      II-were 46 and 49 which were as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      46.  ” Taxes on professions, trades,  callings
\n\t      and  employments,\t subject, however,  ‘to\t the
\n\t      provisions
\n\t      713<\/span>
\n\t      of section one hundred and forty-two A of this
\n\t      Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      49.   ” Cesses on entry of goods into a  local
\n\t      area’ for consumption, use or sale therein.
\n\t      ”\t Terminal   tax was taken to List  I,  i.e.,
\n\t      Central List and is now entry 89 in the  Union
\n\t      List  (List I).  Corresponding entries  to  46
\n\t      and  49 of the Government of India Act,  1935,
\n\t      in the Constitution in.  List II are 52 and 60
\n\t      which are as follows :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      52.   “Taxes  on\tthe entry of  goods  into  a
\n\t      local  area  for\tconsumption,  use  or\tsale
\n\t      therein.\t”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      60.   ” Taxes on professions, trades, callings
\n\t      and employments.\t”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  history  of  these taxes therefore shows  that  in\t the
\nDevolution  Rules under the Government of India\t Act,  1915,
\noctroi,\t terminal tax and taxes on professions and  callings
\nwere  three  distinct heads of taxation.  Similarly  in\t the
\nGovernment  of India Act, 1935, and in the Constitution\t the
\ntwo entries are separate.  Therefore when s. 142-A was added
\nin  the\t Government of India Act, 1935,\t its  operation\t was
\nlimited to entry 46 of List II and had no reference to entry
\n49 which deals with cesses on entry of goods.  The  position
\nunder  the  Constitution is exactly the same  and  therefore
\nneither\t s. 142-A of the Government of India Act,  1935\t nor
\nArt.  276  has any effect on entry 49 in the  Government  of
\nIndia  Act,  1935  or entry 52\tin  the\t constitution.\t The
\nlearned Attorney-General in support of his argument that the
\nimpugned tax is a tax on trade, relied upon three judgments:
\nThe  Municipality  of Chopda v.\t Motilal  Manekchand  (1)  ;
\nGajadhar Hiralal Ginning & Pressing Factory v. The Municipal
\nCommittee, Washim (2 ); and Secretary, Municipal  Committee,
\nKaranja v. The New East India Press Co.\t Ltd., Bombay (3  ).
\nNone  of  these cases has any applicability to the  tax\t now
\nimpugned because the facts were different and the imposition
\nwas   of   a  different\t character.   The  attack   on\t the
\nconstitutionality  of  the  impugned tax on  the  ground  of
\ncontravention  of Art. 276 is therefore not sustainable\t and
\nmust be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  I.L.R. [1958] Bom. 483.\n<\/p>\n
(2) I.L.R. [1958] Bom. 625.\n<\/p>\n
(3) A.I.R. 1949 Nag. 215.\n<\/p>\n
714<\/span><\/p>\n
The second ground of assault on the constitutionality of the
\ntax  imposed  is based on contravention of ‘Art.  301  which
\nprovides:-\n<\/p>\n
Art.  301.  ” Subject to the other provisions of this  Part,
\ntrade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory  of
\nIndia shall be free.”\n<\/p>\n
It was contended that the tax imposed directly affected\t the
\nmovement  of  goods and therefore violates  Art.  301  which
\nguarantees the freedom of trade throughout the territory  of
\nIndia.\t In  Atiabari Tea Co.  Ltd. v. State of\t Assam<\/a>\t(1),
\nGajendragadkar, J., giving the opinion of the majority\tsaid
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “that  the content of freedom provided for  by
\n\t      Art.   301   was\tlarger\tthan   the   freedom
\n\t      contemplated by s. 297 of the Constitution Act
\n\t      of  1935, and whatever else it may or may\t not
\n\t      include,\tit  certainly includes\tmovement  of
\n\t      trade  which  is of the very  essence  of\t all
\n\t      trade  and  is  its  integral  part.   If\t the
\n\t      transport\t or the movement of goods  is  taxed
\n\t      solely  on the basis that the goods  are\tthus
\n\t      carried  or transported that, in our  opinion,
\n\t      directly\taffects\t the  freedom  of  trade  as
\n\t      contemplated  by Art. 301.  If  the  movement,
\n\t      transport or the carrying of goods is  allowed
\n\t      to  be  impeded,\tobstructed  or\thampered  by
\n\t      taxation\twithout satisfying the\trequirements
\n\t      of Part XIII the freedom of trade on which  so
\n\t      much  emphasis is laid by Art. 301 would\tturn
\n\t      to be illusory.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
According  to Shah, J., the content is wider.  At  page\t 241
\nthe learned Chief Justice gave it a more restricted meaning.
\nRelying on these observations it was contended that the\t tax
\nwhich  is affected by Art. 301 is one which is\tdirectly  on
\nmovement  of  trade, i.e., from one point  to  another.\t  As
\nagainst\t this reliance was placed by the respondent on\tArt.
\n305 which at the relevant time was as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      Art.  305.  ” Nothing in articles 301 and\t 303
\n\t      shall  affect the provisions of  any  existing
\n\t      law  except in so far as the President may  by
\n\t      order otherwise direct;…”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
According to  this article the provisions of Art. 301 do not
\naffect\tthe provisions of any existing law except in so\t far
\nas the President may otherwise direct and there
\n(1)  [1961] x S.C.R. 809.\n<\/p>\n
715<\/span><\/p>\n
is  no such direction by the President.\t ” Existing law\t has
\nbeen defined in Art. 366, clause (10), to mean:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t  existing  law’ means any  law,  Ordinance,
\n\t      order,  bye-law, rule or regulation passed  or
\n\t      made   before   the   commencement   of\tthis
\n\t      Constitution by any Legislature, authority  or
\n\t      person  having  power  to\t make  such  a\tlaw,
\n\t      Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule or  regulation
\n\t      ; ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
and by Art. 372 all laws in force in the territory of  India
\nimmediately  before  the commencement  of  the\tConstitution
\nshall  continue to be in force until altered or repealed  or
\namended by a competent legislature.  It was these provisions
\nwhich  were relied upon as an answer to the question of\t the
\napplicability of Art. 301.  But the learned Attorney-General
\nargued\tthat the action taken by the  Municipal\t Corporation
\nwas after the coming into force of the Constitution, being a
\nlevy  imposed as from January, 1955, that the imposition  of
\nthe tax was subordinate legislation which could not be saved
\nunder  Art.  305 and that the tax could only be\t imposed  by
\nresorting to the provisions of Art. 304(b) which provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Art.  304.   ”  Notwithstanding  anything\t  in
\n\t      article 301 or article 303, the Legislature of
\n\t      a State may by law-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)…………………………………………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\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<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided\tthat  no Bill or amendment  for\t the
\n\t      purposes of clause (b) shall be introduced  or
\n\t      moved  in the Legislature of a  State  without
\n\t      the previous sanction of the President.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  argument  therefore was this that the Act\tbeing  an  ”
\nexisting law ” might be saved under Art. 305 but that  would
\noperate\t on  and  save the taxes on  articles  specified  in
\nSchedule III of Part V, item 18, i.e., octroi on animals and
\ngoods set out in Classes I to VII of that Part but would not
\nsave  the octroi on other articles under Class VIII  imposed
\nafter the Constitution because that would be an addition  of
\na bye-law, rule or order and would not fall within the\tterm
\n” existing
\n716<\/span>
\nlaw “. The impugned tax was levied under class VIII set\t out
\nin part V which is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
     Octori\t\t\t\t Maximum rate
\n     Class VIII-Other articles
\n     which are not specified above
\n     and which may be approved
\n     by the Corporation by an\t\t Rs. 2-0-0 percent.
\n     order in this behalf…………\t    ad valorem.
\n     Octroi is to be levied by referenceto s. 130 of the Act
\n     which provides:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      S.    130.    ”  If  the\tcorporation   by   a
\n\t      resolution deter. mines that an octroi  should
\n\t      be  levied on animals or goods brought  within
\n\t      the  octroi  limits of the city,\tsuch  octroi
\n\t      shall  be\t levied on such\t articles  or  goods
\n\t      specified\t in Part V of Schedule III  at\tsuch
\n\t      rates  not  exceeding those laid down  in\t the
\n\t      said Part in such manner as may be  determined
\n\t      by the corporation.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore under this section if the Corporation resolved  to
\nlevy  octroi on animals or goods brought within\t the  octroi
\nlimits\tof  the city then this octroi was to  be  levied  at
\nrates not exceeding those laid down in that section.   This,
\nit was submitted, was subordinate legislation and  therefore
\nwas  not  saved\t by Article 305 because”  existing  law”  as
\ndefined\t means\tany law, ordinance, order, by-law,  rule  or
\nregulation  passed  before  the\t Constitution  and  as\t the
\nimpugned   tax\twas  a\tnew  regulation\t passed\t after\t the
\nConstitution  it was not saved by Art. 305.  In\t support  of
\nthis  reliance was placed on the observations of this  Court
\nin Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) v. The Union of India<\/a>(1); but as
\nwas  observed  by the Divisional Bench that  case  does\t not
\napply to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
For the respondent it was argued that (1) goods and  animals
\nwere specified in the Act and therefore there was no  making
\nor  passing of new regulations and (2) it is not a  case  of
\ndelegated   legislation\t but  is  a  case   of\t conditional
\nlegislation.   It  was\tfirstly\t submitted  that  there\t  is
\nsufficient  specification in the Act itself of the  articles
\non which the octroi duty could be levied.  Section 97 of the
\nAct gives the power to levy octroi duty on animals or  goods
\nwithout\t any exception which are brought within\t the  octroi
\nlimits.\t Sections 98
\n(1)  [1960] 2 S.C.R. 671.\n<\/p>\n
 717<\/span><\/p>\n
and 130 lay down the procedure for the levying of taxes\t and
\nimpose\ta limitation on the extent of the tax to  be  levied
\nand Classes I to VII make certain articles taxable and Class
\nVIII  makes  other articles and goods taxable  if  they\t are
\napproved  by the Corporation.  This approach to the  subject
\nhas  the  support of a decision of this Court  in  Anwarkhan
\nMahboob Co. v. The State of Bombay<\/a> (1), where the facts were
\nthat  the assessee was subjected to a purchase tax under  s.
\n14(6)  of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (Act III  of  1953)
\nThe  contention of the assessee was that the goods  had\t not
\nbeen  specified\t in the Sales Tax Act.\tIn that Act  in\t the
\nschedule  were mentioned the goods the sale or\tpurchase  of
\nwhich  was  subject to tax and the last entry was of  ”\t all
\ngoods  other  than  those specified from  time\tto  time  in
\nSchedule  A (and section 7A) and in the preceding  entries.”
\nThe question for decision was whether that entry amounted to
\nspecification of goods for the purposes of Sales Tax and  it
\nwas  held  that\t it  was.   This  case\twas  sought  to\t  be
\ndistinguished on the ground that the words there were ”\t all
\ngoods  other than……….. and those words would  comprise
\nevery  article which was not specifically mentioned  in\t the
\nSchedule.  We are unable to accept this distinction  because
\neven  though  the  words used in  the  present\tstatute\t are
\ndifferent  the combined effect of ss. 97 and 130 and Part  V
\nof Schedule III including Class VIII which have been set out
\nabove  is  that the words are of ‘very\tgeneral\t nature\t and
\nwould have the same effect as if all articles were  intended
\nto  be and were included. In view of this it is\t unnecessary
\nto discuss the second contention.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore the answer to the first question referred is\tthat
\nthe impugned octroi duty does not contravene the  provisions
\nof  Arts. 276 and 301.\tIn view of our decision on  the\t two
\nquestions referred these appeals fail and are dismissed with
\ncosts.\tOne hearing fee.\n<\/p>\n
Consequently  Writ Petition Nos. 97 and 107  are  dismissed.
\nThere will be no order as to costs in those petitions.
\n(1)  [1961] 1 S.C.R. 709.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t     Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t    Petitions dismissed,
\n718<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bangalore Woollen, Cotton And … vs Corporation Of The City Of … on 5 April, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 562, 1961 SCR Supl. (3) 707 Author: K L. Bench: Das, S.K., Kapur, J.L., Hidayatullah, M., Shah, J.C., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama PETITIONER: BANGALORE WOOLLEN, COTTON AND SILK MILLS CO. LTD., Vs. […]<\/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-2976","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBangalore Woollen, Cotton And ... vs Corporation Of The City Of ... on 5 April, 1961 - 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\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bangalore Woollen, Cotton And ... vs Corporation Of The City Of ... on 5 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961\" \/>\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=\"1961-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-04T12:41:14+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bangalore Woollen, Cotton And … vs Corporation Of The City Of … on 5 April, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-04T12:41:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961\"},\"wordCount\":3386,\"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\\\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961\",\"name\":\"Bangalore Woollen, Cotton And ... vs Corporation Of The City Of ... on 5 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-04T12:41:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bangalore Woollen, Cotton And … vs Corporation Of The City Of … on 5 April, 1961\"}]},{\"@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":"Bangalore Woollen, Cotton And ... vs Corporation Of The City Of ... on 5 April, 1961 - 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\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bangalore Woollen, Cotton And ... vs Corporation Of The City Of ... on 5 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-04T12:41:14+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bangalore Woollen, Cotton And … vs Corporation Of The City Of … on 5 April, 1961","datePublished":"1961-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-04T12:41:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961"},"wordCount":3386,"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\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961","name":"Bangalore Woollen, Cotton And ... vs Corporation Of The City Of ... on 5 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-04T12:41:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-woollen-cotton-and-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-on-5-april-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bangalore Woollen, Cotton And … vs Corporation Of The City Of … on 5 April, 1961"}]},{"@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\/2976","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=2976"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2976\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2976"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2976"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2976"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}