Holding

The purchase‑tax provisions in the Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal and Bombay sales‑tax Acts are valid and within State legislative competence, overruling the Goodyear decision.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the validity of purchase‑tax provisions in the sales‑tax statutes of Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal and Bombay, which imposed tax on goods purchased for manufacture when the finished goods were dispatched out of the state without a sale. Dealers challenged these provisions on the ground that they were ultra vires the State legislatures, relying on the ratio in Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana which had declared similar provisions a consignment tax. The Court held that the provisions are substantially similar to those upheld in Hotel Balaji and therefore lie within the legislative competence of the States. It rejected the Goodyear reasoning, found no conflict between Hotel Balaji and Mukerian Papers, and affirmed that the tax is a purchase tax on raw material, not a tax on inter‑state consignment. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the dealers were dismissed and the appeals filed by the States were allowed.

Issues considered

The constitutionality of Section 4B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and analogous purchase‑tax provisions in other State sales‑tax statutes.
Whether such provisions constitute a consignment tax in violation of the States' legislative competence under the Constitution.
The correctness of the ratio in Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana and its applicability to the present provisions.
Whether there is a conflict between the decisions in Hotel Balaji and Mukerian Papers concerning the scope of State taxation power.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Acts. 6A
Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959s. 13AA
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956s. 5
Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973s. 9(1)(b)
Kerala Sales Tax Acts. 5A
Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948s. 4B
Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Acts. 7A
West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1941s. 4(6)(ii)
West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954s. 4(2)(i)

Subjects

Sales TaxPurchase TaxConsignment TaxLegislative CompetenceState TaxationArticle 32Supreme CourtUltra ViresInter‑State TradeTaxation of Raw Materials

Judgment

MIS. DEVI DASS GOPAL KRISHAN PVT. LTD. ETC. ETC. A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

APRIL 8, 1994

[M.N. VENKATACHALJAH, CJ. A.M. AHMADI AND B.P. B
JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.]

Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 194&-Section 4B-Held valid.

Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act-Section ?A-Held Valid.
c
Kera/a Sales Tax Act-Section SA-Held valid.

West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1941/1954-Sections 4(2)(i)/Section
4(b )(ii)-Held valid.

Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959/Act 2 of 1991>-Section 13AA-Held valid. D
., Sales Tax-Levy of Purchase Tax by States on goods purchased by a
dealer for use within the State for manufacture of goods and disposing of such
manufactured goods to a place outside the State in any manner otherwise
than by way of sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the E
course of export outside the tenitory of India-Held valid.

The dealers from the States of Punjab, Kerala and Tamil Nadu
challenged the validity of Sections 4B, 4(2)(i) and Section 7A respectively
in their State Sales Tax Acts by which purchase tax was sought to be levied
on purchases of any goods for being used as raw material in the manufac- F
1, ture of goods which were disposed of by the manufacturer in a manner
other than by way of sale in the State or by way of sale or purchase in the
course of inter-State trade or commerce, or in the course of export from
India.

Following the decision in Good Year's case 1990 (2) SCC 71, the West G
Bengal Tribunal held that Section 4(6) (ii) and 4(2)(i) of the West Bengal
Act were ultra vires. The State Legislature thereafter amended the
provision 4(6)(ii) and snbstitnted clause (i) in Section 4(2). This amended
provision was struck down by the High Court West Bengal following the
judgment in Good Year. H
417
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A Similarly, after the judgment in Good Year's case holding that ·-?'
Section 13AA of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, was beyond the com-
petence of the State Legislature, an Amendment Act was passed substitut-
ing Section 13AA. Writ Petitions filed by various dealers challenging the
new provision were allowed by the High Court of Bombay. Hence appeals
were filed by the States of West Bengal and Maharashtra.
B
The dealers contended that the reasoning and approach adopted and
conclusion arrived at in Good Year is the correct one that the decision in 1
Hotel Balaji needed re-consideration, that the decision in Hotel Baloji being
in conflict with Mukerian papers, these matters should be placed before a
C larger bench to resolve the conflict between Hotel Balaji and Mukerian
Papers, that the text of taxable event adopted in Good Year is correct
whereas the ratio in Hotel Balaji has the effect of taxing the despatch of
manufactured goods though purporting to tax the purchase of raw
material, that the nexus, if any, between the purchase of raw material and
D the point of levy is absent where the tax is levied at the stage of despatch
of mannfactured goods beyond the state and that there can be no levy on
non-existent goods.

Dismissing the writ petition and appeals by the dealers and allowing I
the appeals filed by the States, this Court
E
HELD : 1. Section 4B of the Punjab Act is in substance similar to
Section 9(1)(b) of Haryana Sales Tax Act. Validity of Section 4B of the
Punjab Act is sustained. It cannot be said to be beyond the competence of
the State Legislature. (423-D)

F 2. Section SB of the Kerala Act and Section 7A(l) of the Tamil Nadn
Act are similar to Section 6A of the A.P. Act which has been upheld in
Hotel Balaji. Their validity is sustained. (424-CJ

3. Section 4(2) (i) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1941 and section
G 4(6) (ii) of the Amended Act of 1954 are valid. [425-C; 426-F)

Rasoi Limited v. State of West Bengal and others, (1991) 80 STC 356,
reversed.

Chloride Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
H Government of West Bengal and others, overruled.
DEVIDASSGOPALKRISHANLTD. v.STATE[JEEVANREDDY,J.] 419
• _,_
4. Section 13AA as substituted by the Bombay Sales Tax (Amend- A
ment) Act 2 of 1990 is perfectly valid and competent piece oflegislation.
[427-A-E]
S. There is no conflict between Hotel Balaji and Mukerian Papers. The
law laid down in Good Year does not represent the correct view oflaw.
[426-FJ B
Hotel Balaji & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors., (1993) 88 S.T.C. 981, relied
on.

Good Year India Ltd. v. State of Haryana, [1990] 2 S.C.C. 71, disap-
proved.
c
Mukerian Papers v. State of Punjab, [1991] 2 S.C.C. 580, distinguished.

(The Court observed that the opinion pertains to the provision which
are subject matter before the Court. However, it was observed that if the
provision in the other statutes are similar, those cases will be governed by D
the ratio of this decision). [427-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 1732
) of 1981 etc. etc.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
E
Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, Raja Ram Aggarwal,
S.K. Bagga, Anil B. Divan, Santosh Hegde, T. Ramachandran, G. Saran-
gan, Barish N. Salve, K.M. Reddy, Ms. Priya Hingorani, Ms. Indu Mal-
hotra, V. Subramanian, V.J. Francis, S.K. Jain, S.C. Gupta, Ms. Shirin Jain,
S.R. Agrawal, A.T. Patra, Ms. Bina Gupta, Gautam Khaitan, for OP F
khaitan & Co. Suman J Khaitan, Darshan Singh for Khaitan & Co. S.M.
1 Madhav, A.S. Bhasme, R.S. Yadav, G.K. Bansal, Ravinder Narian, S.
Sukumaran, for JBD. Ms. Radha Rangaswamy and S. Balakrishnan for the
appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by_ G
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted in the Special leave Petition.

In Goodyear India Limited v. State of Haryana, [1990] 2 S.C.C. 71, a
Bench of this Court comprising Sabyasachi Mukharji and S. Ranganathan,
JJ. declared Section 9(1)(b) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act; 1973 H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 3 S.C.R.

A ultravires the powers of the State Legislature insofar as it imposed a tax on
the despatch of goods outside the territory of the State. It was held that
"the tax and despatch of goods outside the territory of the State certainly
is in the course of inter~state trade or commerce and, in other words,
amounts to imposition of consignment tax" Section 9(1)(b) levied purchase
tax on goods purchased by a dealer who used them in the manufacture of
B other goods and disposed of such manufactured goods to a place outside
the place in any manner otherwise than by way of sale in the course of
inter-state trade or commerce or in the course of export outside the
territory of India within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The said tax was also leviable in a case where
C the manufactured goods were disposed of within the State otherwise than
by way of sale in the State. Section BAA of the Bombay Sales Tax Act,
1959 also came up for consideration in the same decision. Section BAA
provided that where a dealer purchased goods and. used such goods in the
manufacture of taxable goods and despatched the goods so manufactured
D to his own place of business or to his agent's place of business situated
outside the State within the territory of India, such dealer shall pay an
additional purchase tax at the rate of two paise in the Rupee on the
purchase price of the goods so used in the manufacture. The Division
Bench held that the said provision is equally beyond the legislative com-
petence of the Maharashtra Legislature inasmuch as it purported to levy a
E consignment tax.

Relying upon the decision in Goodyear, dealers from various states
challenged the validity of similar provisions in their respective enactments,
all of which were referred to a three-Judge Bench. They were posted for
F hearing before a Bench comprising S. Ranganathan, V. Ramaswami, JJ.
and one of us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.). Having regard to the constraint of
time, the bench confined its attention only to the relevant provisions in
three enactments, viz., Section 15-B of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, Section
3AAAA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and Section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh
G General Sales Tax Act, delinking the matters relating to other State enact-
ments. The <lelinked matters were directed to be heard separately. Two
opinions were delivered in the batch of cases heard by the Bench (reported
in Hotel Ba/aji & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (1993) 88 S.T.C.
98). One opinion was delivered by one of us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.)
speaking for himself and V. Ramaswami, J. In this opinion, it was held that
H the decision in Goodyear declaring the relevant provisions in Haryana and
DEVI DASS GOPALKRISHAN LTD. v. STATE [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 421

Bombay Acts as outside the legislative competency of respective State A
Legislatures is not correct in law. It was held that the said provisions in
both the enactments were perfectly competent, valid and effective. On that
reasoning, the relevant provisions in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Andhra
Pradesh enactments were held to be perfectly valid and effective. S. Ran-
ganathan, J., in his separate opinion, agreed that the provisions in the said
three enactments were perfectly valid. The learned Judge recalled his
B
observations in his concurring opinion in Goodyear and observed that the
particular view-point presented in Hotel Balaji was not presented in
Goodyear and that on reconsideration, he finds the reasoning in support
of the validity of the provisions more persuasive. The learned Judge said :
c
"This larger concept namely, that these various alternatives are not
set out in the section with a view to fasten the charge of tax at the
point of use, consumption, manufacture, production and consign-
ment or despatch but in an attempt to make clear that what is
sought to be levied is a tax on raw materials on the occasion of D
their last purchase inside the State had not been projected before,
or considered by us. I am inclined now to think that this is an
approach that basically alters the parameters and removes the
.
provision fron;i the area of vulnerability."

(Emphasis supplied) E

The matters relating to other States have now come up before us.
They relate to Punjab, Tan1il Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal and Bombay. The
main contention of the counsel for the dealers is that the reasoning and
approach adopted and conclusion arrived at in Goodyear is the correct one.' p
1 Counsel faulted the reasoning and conclusion in Hotel Balaji and asked for
its reconsideration. Counsel submitted that the decision in Hotel Balaji is
also contrary to the reasoning in Mukerian Papers v. State of Punjab, [1991]
2 S.C.C. 580, a decision rendered by Bench of three-Judges. It is argued
that the decision in Mukerian Papers squarely affirms the decision in
Goodyear. For this reason, it is submitted, these matters must be placed G
before a larger Bench lo resolve the conflict between Hotel Balaji and
Mukerian Papers. It is urged that the test of taxable event adopted in
Goodyear is the correct one whereas the ratio of Hotel Balaji has the effect
of taxing the despatch of manufactured goods though purporting to tax .the
purchase of the raw material. The nexus, if any, between the purchase of H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A raw material and the point of levy, it is submitted, is absent where the tax
is levied at the stage of despatch of manufactured goods beyond the State.
There can be no levy on non-existent goods, it is contended further.

Mukerian Papers was decided by a Bench comprising Ranganathan
Misra, C.J., and iwo ~f us, M.N. Venkatachaliah and A.M. Ahmadi, J. T)le
B only contention before the Bench was that the point arising therein was
concluded by Goodyear and the Bench agreed with the said contention in
the facts of that case. The correctness of Goodyear was not questioned 1
before the Bench which fact was expressly recorded in the judgment. There
was, therefore, no occasion for the Bench either to affirm or dissent from
C the decision in Goodyear. This aspect has been dealt with in Para 101 of
the decision in Hotel Balaji and we agree with it. Accordingly, we see no
conflict between Hotel Balaji and Mukerian Papers.

Now coming to the merits of the contention, we are of the considered
opinion that there is no reason to take a view different from the one taken
D in Hotel Balaji. All the contentions urged now have been considered and
dealt with in the said decision. In our opinion, the approach adopted in
Goodyear does not accord with the scheme, intendment and language of
the relevant provisions of the Haryana and Bombay Acts, and cannot be
accepted.
E
The challenge in this batch is to Section 4-B of the Punjab General
Sales Tax Act, Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act, Section 5-A
of the Kerala Sales Tax Act, Sections 4(2}(i) and 4(6) (ii) of the West
Bengal Sales Tax Acts, 1941 and 1954 respectively and Section 13AA of
the Bombay Sales Act. The sole basis of the attack on the said provisions
F is the reasoning in and ratio of Goodyear. No separate arguments are
addressed each provision-wise: Even so, it would be appropriate to notice
briefly the relevant provisions in each State enactment.

Section 4-B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 reads thus :
G "Section 4-B : Levy of purchases tax on goods - where a dealers
who is liable to pay tax under this Act purchases any goods other
than those specified in Schedule 'B' from any source and :-

(i) Uses them within the State in the manufacture of goods
H specified in Schedule 'B' or
\
,,*-

DEVI DASS GOPALKRISHANLTD. v. STATE[JEEVANREDDY,J.) 423
...... (ii) Uses them within the State in the manufacture of any goods, A
other than those specified in Schedule 'B' and sends the goods so
manufactured outside the State in any manner other than by way
of sale in the course of inter-state trade or commerce or in the
course of export out of the territory of India, or

(iv) sends them outside the State other than liy way of sale in the B
course of inter-state trade or commerce or in the course of export
out of the territory of India and no tax is payable on the purchase
of such goods under any other provision of this Act, there shall be
levied a tax on the purchase of such goods at such rate not
exceeding the rate specified under sub-section (1) or Section (5) c
as the State Government may direct."

(Extracted from Para 7 of Writ Petition No. 1732 of 1981)

It is evident that Section 4-B of the Punjab Act is in substance similar
to Section 9(1)(b) of the Haryana Sales Tax Act. For the reasons given D
hereinabove, the validity of Section 4-B is sustained. It cannot be said to
\, be beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature.

Section 5-A of the Kerala General Tax Act read thus :
E
"SA levy or purchase tax. -- (1) Every dealer who, in the course of
his bµsiness, purchases from a registered dealer or from any other
person any goods, the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax
under this Act, in circumstances in which no tax is payable under
section 5, and either--
F
1 (a) consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for
sale or otherwise; or

- (b) disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of
sale in the state; or

(c) despatchs them to any place outside the state except as a direct
G

result of sale or purchase in the course of interstate trade or
commerce shall, whatever be the quantum of the turnover relating
to such purchase for a year, pay tax on the taxable turnover relating
to such purchase for the year at the rates mentioned in Section 5. H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 3 S.C.R.

A (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a dealer
(other than a casual trader or agent of a non-resident dealer)
purchasing goods, the sale of which is liable to tax under section
5, shall not be liable to pay tax under sub-section (1) if his total
turnover for a year less than one lakh rupees;

B Provided that where the total turnover of such dealer for the
year in respect of the goods mentioned in clause (i) of sub-section
1
(1) of section 5 is not less than fifty thousand rupees, he shall be
liable to pay tax on the taxable turnover in respect of those goods.

c (3) Omitted as unnecessary."

It is evident that Section 5-B of the Kerala Act broadly corresponds
to Section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, which has
been upheld in Hotel Balaji. For the reasons given hereinabove, the validity
of Section 5-A is also sustained.
D
Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act reads thus :

"7-A. levy of purchase tax.-(1) Every dealer who in course of his
business purchases from a registered dealer or from any other
person, any goods (the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax
E under this Act) in circumstances in which no tax is payable under
section 3, 4 or 5 as the case may be and either, .

(a) consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for
sale or otherwise; or
F (b) disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of y

l
sale in the State; or

G
(c) despatches them to a place outside the State except as a direCt
result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade or
commerce

shall pay tax on the turnover relating to the purchase of
-
aforesaid at the rate mentioned in section 3, 4 or 5 as the case may
be, whatever be the quantum of such turnover in a year.

H Provided that a dealer (other than a casual trader or agent of
DEVIDASS GOP AL KRISHAN LIB. v. STATE [JEEVAN REDDY.J.] 425
-~
a non-resident dealer) purchasing goods the sale of which is liable A
to tax under sub-section (1) of section 3 shall not be liable to pay
tax under this sub-section,if his total turnover for a year is less than
one lakh rupees.

Sub-sections (2) and (3) are omitted as unnecessary."
B
It is evident that Section 7-A(l) of the Tamil Nadu Act is similar to
Section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sale.' Tax Act. Accordingly,
the attack upon its constitutionality is liable to fail.

In West Bengal, the purchase tax is levied by Section 4(6)(ii) of the
Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and Section 4(2)(i) of the West c
Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 which read thus:

"4(6)(ii)-Every dealer, who has become liable to pay tax under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) of this section
or sub-section (3) of section 8 and is registered under this Act,
D
shall, in addition to the tax referred to therein, be also liable to
pay tax under this Act on all his purchases from-
"I
(i) .......................................

(ii) a registered dealer, to whom a declaration referred to in the E
proviso to clause (bb) of sub-section (1) of section 5 has been or
will be furnished by him respect of sales referred to in sub-clause
(i) or sub-clause (ii) of the said clause, of goods purchased against
such declaration, and used by him directly in the manufacture of
West Bengal, of goods or in the packing of of such goods, when
such manufactured goods are transferred by him to a place outside F
~
• West Bengal or disposed of by him, otherwise than by way of sale
in West BengaL

S.4(2)(i) -A dealer to pay tax under sub-section (1) availing him-
self of the benefit under section 23A by furnishing a declaration
G
referred to in the proviso thereto shall, in addition to the tax
payable under sub-section (1), be liable to pay tax under this Act, -

(i) on all such purchases against the declaration issued or to be
issued by him goods required for use by him directly, in manufac-
luring, making, processing or packing in West Bengal of notified H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A commodities, when such notified commodities are transferred by
him to a place outside West Bengal or disposed of by him otherwise
than by way of sale in West Bengal."

Following the decision in Goodyear, the Tribunal held in Rasoi
Limited v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (1991) 80 S.T.C. 356 (a decision
B rendered on September 11, 1990) that the aforesaid provisions were
ultravires the powers of the State Legislature and, therefore, invalid. The
State Legislature then stepped in and amended the said provisions by the '.\
West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1990 amending the said
provisions. By the said (Amendment)Act, in Section 4(6)(ii) of the 1941
c Act, the words beginning with "and used by him directly in the manufac-
ture" and ending with "by way of sale in West Bengal" were omitted with
retrospective effect from October 10, 1977. The said (Amendment) Act
also substituted clause (i) in sub-section (2) of Section 4 of 1954 Act. The
substituted clause (1) reads as follows :

D "(i) on all such purchase of goods against the declaration issued
or to be issued by him."
{
(It is not necessary to notice the other amendments in Section 4 I
for the purpose of this case.)
E The amended provision was again challenged in a batch of writ
petitions - Chloride Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Government of West Bengal & Ors. & batch. By its judgment and order
dated December 20, 1991, the Tribunal struck down the amended
provisions as well on the very reasoning adopted in Goodyear. Since we
F have held that the law laid down in Goodyear does not represent the
correct view of law, the appeals filed by the State of West Bengal (Com- r
missioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal and Ors.) have to be allowed •
declaring the aforesaid provisions both before and after amendment as
perfectly valid, competent and effective.

G So far as State of Maharashtra is con.cerned, Section BAA which
was incorporated in the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 with effect from July
1, 1982 was declared to be beyond the competence of the State Legislature
in Goodyear. With a view to get over the said judgment and its consequen-
ces, the Governor of Bombay issued the Bombay Sales Tax (Amendment) - l

H Ordinance, 1989 which was subsequently enacted into an Amendment Act
DEVI DASS GOPALKRISHANLTD. v. STATE(JEEVANREDDY.J.] 427
·-4-
substituting Section 13AA altogether with retrospective effect from July, A
1982. The substituted Section 13AA reads as follows:

"13AA. (1) Where a dealer, who is liable to pay tax under this Act,
purchases any goods specified in Part I of the Schedule C, directly
or through Commission Agent, from a person who is or is not a
Registered dealer and uses such goods in the manufacture of B
taxable goods, then, unless the goods so manufactured are sold by
r the dealer, there shall be levied, in addition to the Sales Tax, paid
or payable, if any, or as the case may be, the purchase tax levied
or leviable, if any, under the other provisions of this Act in respect
of purchases of such goods, a purchase tax at the rate of two paise c
in the rupee on the purchase price of the goods so used in the
manufacture, and accordingly the dealer shall include purchase
price of such goods in his turnover of purchases in his return under
Section 32, which he is to furnish next thereafter."

The validity of this provision was questioned in a batch of writ D
petitions which have been allowed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High
Court by its judgment and order dated August 28, 1990 in Writ Petition
"I Nos. 477, 587 and 924 of 1990. Civil Appeal Nos. 226-228(NT) of 1991 are
preferred against the said judgment . The basi• upon which the division
' Bench has struck down the amended Section 13AA is the one contained
E
in Goodyear. For the reasons given hereinabove, these appeals are allowed
and it is declared that Section 13AA as substituted by Bombay Sales Tax
(Amendment) Act 2 of 1990 (which replaced Maharashtra Ordinance IX
of 1989) is perfectly valid and competent piece of Legislation. Indeed, the
result of our judgment would be that the decision in Goodyear insofar as
it declared the original Section 13AA as invalid must be deemed to not F
"j correct in law.

It is brought to our notice that besides West Bengal and Bombay,
other States too have amended/substituted the relevant provisions with a
view to neutralise the attack based on Goodyear. The amended provisions
G
in these enactments have not been placed before us. It is evident that our
opinion pertains to the provisions which are the subject-matter of the
matters before us. However, if the provisions in the other statutes are
similar, those cases will be governed by the ratio of this decision.

For the above reasons, the writ petitions and appeals filed by the H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A dealers, viz, W.P. 1732/81, W.P. 28/81, W.P. 1316/82, C.A. 3523-25/79, C.A.
3266/79, CA. 649/80, S.L.P. (C)6958/94 C.A.No. 2352/94 (CC16536), C.A.
2551-61/92 and CA. 1563/91 are dismissed. The appeals filed by the States,
viz. C.A.2990/91, C.A.4807/91, CA. 543/86, CA.3410/84, CA. 2125/91,
C.A.1649/92, C.A.1650/92, C.A.2562/92, C.A.1941/92, C.A.2289/92,
B C.A.1645/92, C.A.2256/92, C.A. arising from SLP 5626/94 C.A. 5900/92,
C.A.1898-99/91, C.A.4850-51/91, C.A. 3437-38/91, C.A.1646-48/92, C.A.
709-09A/91, C.A.2452/91, C.A.1389-90/91, C.A.1816/91 and C.A. 226-
228/91 are allowed. No order as to costs.

Civil appeal No. 407 of 1993 is not concerned with the batch. Ac-
C cordingly, it is delinked and may be posted for hearing in usual course.

V.M. W.P. and Appeals filed by dealers are dismissed.
Appeals filed by the States are allowed.

-

(