1966 (3) TMI 87 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Clause 3 of the Bharatpur notification was a term of the contract of sale between the appellant and the State of Bharatpur.
2. Whether the term of the contract was binding upon the successor State of Rajasthan.
3. Whether there was an implied recognition by the Rajasthan State of the contractual liability.
4. Whether the Rajasthan (Regulation of Customs Duties) Ordinance No. 16 of 1949 superseded the contractual liability.
5. Whether the notification dated January 16, 1951, revoking the tax concessions, was in violation of Article 306 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether Clause 3 of the Bharatpur notification was a term of the contract of sale between the appellant and the State of Bharatpur:

The appellant argued that the notification dated May 18, 1946, regarding the sale of plots by the Bharatpur State was an offer to purchase plots on specified terms and conditions, including the concession in Clause 3. The respondent countered that the concession did not form part of the contract of sale but was a general benefit for trade in the Mandi. The court assumed in favor of the appellant that Clause 3 was a term of the contract but noted that the suit would still fail due to lack of recognition by the successor State of Rajasthan.

2. Whether the term of the contract was binding upon the successor State of Rajasthan:

The court held that the successor State does not automatically inherit the rights and obligations of the merged State. The contractual liability of a former State is binding on a succeeding sovereign State only if it recognizes that liability. The court cited precedents, including *The Secretary of State in Council of India v. Kamachee Boye Saheba* and *Vajesingji Joravarsingji v. Secretary of State for India in Council*, to support this principle. The court concluded that there was no recognition of the contractual liability by the succeeding State of Rajasthan.

3. Whether there was an implied recognition by the Rajasthan State of the contractual liability:

The appellant argued that the Rajasthan State impliedly recognized the contractual liability by continuing the exemptions until January 13, 1951. The court rejected this argument, stating that the continued concessions were referable to the law under which customs concessions could be granted and recognized. The notification dated January 16, 1951, revoking the concessions, was issued under the Matsya Customs Ordinance No. 14 of 1948, indicating no implied recognition of the contractual liability.

4. Whether the Rajasthan (Regulation of Customs Duties) Ordinance No. 16 of 1949 superseded the contractual liability:

The court held that the Rajasthan (Regulation of Customs Duties) Ordinance No. 16 of 1949, which introduced a new law imposing duty on export and import into Rajasthan as a whole, superseded the previous contractual rights. The Ordinance did not contain any provision preserving the alleged contractual rights of the appellant. The court cited precedents, including *Thakur Jagannath Baksh Singh v. The United Provinces* and *Maharaj Umeg Singh and others v. The State of Bombay and others*, to support the principle that legislative competence can alter the terms and conditions of a previous contract.

5. Whether the notification dated January 16, 1951, revoking the tax concessions, was in violation of Article 306 of the Constitution:

The appellant argued that the notification was in violation of Article 306, which allows certain States to continue levying customs duties if an agreement is entered into with the Government of India. The court noted that the appellant's claim was based on a contractual liability of the Bharatpur State, not on any provision of Bharatpur law. The court concluded that Article 306 was not applicable to the appellant's case and dismissed the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the contractual liability was not recognized by the successor State of Rajasthan, and even if it were, it was superseded by the Rajasthan (Regulation of Customs Duties) Ordinance No. 16 of 1949. The court also found that the notification revoking the tax concessions did not violate Article 306 of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed with costs.