Smt. Ujjam Bai vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1961)

Case Summary: Smt. Ujjam Bai vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1961)

Case Stats

Court	Supreme Court of India
Case No.	Writ Petition No 79 of 1959
Date of Decision	28-04-1961
Bench	Full Bench
Hon'ble Judges	S. K. Das, J; N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J; M. Hidayatullah, J; K. Subba Rao, J; J. R. Madholkar, J; J. L. Kapur, J; A. K. Sarkar, J
Acts Referred	Constitution of India — Art. 14, 18(1)(g), 19, 19(1)(g), 31, 32, 133, 226, 265, 286; Supreme Court Rules, 1950 — Order 5A Rule 2; Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 — §4(1); Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 5 Rule 2
Citations	AIR 1962 SC 1621; (1963) 2 SCR 778 Supp; (1963) 1 SCR 778
Advocate	M.C. Setalvad (AGI), C.K. Daphtury (SGI), G.S. Pathak, S.C. Khare, S.N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath, P.L. Vohra
Final Decision	Dismissed — Taxation laws valid, not violative of Article 19(1)(g) in this case

[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=284460

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a partner in a bidi manufacturing and sales firm registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, challenged a sales tax assessment order dated 20-12-1958 for the April–June 1958 period. She argued that government notifications granted exemption for bidi sales and that the levy was unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(g). The assessment authority rejected this, noting excise duties had not been paid, a condition for exemption.

Law Points Raised

• Whether taxation laws fall within the limitations of Part III of the Constitution.
• Applicability of Article 19(1)(g) to validly enacted taxation laws.
• Distinction between laws of general taxation and colourable legislation targeting trade.
• Relationship between Articles 265, 31(1), 14, and 19 in taxation context.

Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred

• Constitution of India — Arts. 14, 18(1)(g), 19, 19(1)(g), 31, 32, 133, 226, 265, 286
• Supreme Court Rules, 1950 — Order 5A Rule 2
• Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 — §4(1)
• Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 5 Rule 2

Judgments Referred

• Ramjilal vs ITO, (1951) SCR 127
• Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair vs State of Kerala, AIR 1961 SC 552

Obiter Dicta

Taxation laws, if validly enacted, generally do not infringe Article 19(1)(g) as their object is revenue collection, not restricting trade. However, colourable or discriminatory taxes may be struck down under Part III.

Ratio Decidendi

A taxation law within legislative competence and not colourable is not a restriction under Article 19(1)(g). Article 265 ensures no tax without authority of law, but taxation laws are subject to Article 14's equality mandate. Sales tax in this case did not infringe fundamental rights.

Final Ruling

The petition under Article 32 was dismissed. The Court held taxation laws are subject to Part III but do not generally fall within Article 19(1)(g) unless they are colourable or discriminatory. The levy here was valid.

Summary

The Supreme Court clarified that taxation laws, though generally immune from challenges under Article 19(1)(g), are still subject to Article 14 scrutiny. Valid taxes within legislative competence aimed at revenue do not restrict trade under Article 19(1)(g). Colourable or discriminatory taxes, however, can be struck down. The sales tax levy on bidi sales in this case was upheld as constitutional.