Satpal & Co. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors.

651 SATPAL & CO. ETC. l'. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. _April_ 12, 1979 [D. A. DESAI AND A P. SEN, JJ.] _Punjab Excise (Delhi 'A1nei1dn1eizt)_ _Ordinance,_ 1979 _ctnpowering_ _tile·_ _Govern-_ _numt under the Punjab Excise Act, to levy "special duty" on the iniport of coun .._ _try_ _liquor. into Delhi and_ _the_ _Delhi Fiscal_ _Duty_ _Order,_ 1979 _levying "special_ _duty'"-Validity_ _of,_ B _Powers_ o'~ _Parliament to_ /egislat~ _exclusively for Union Territory_ _of_ _Delhi,_ _a part_ _of_ _the Territory_ _of_ _India not included_ _in_ _a_ _State-Constitution_ _of_ _India_ C _Articles_ 246 _to_ 248 _and Entry_ 97 _of_ _t/ie Union List._ _Right to_ _trade_ _in_ _intoxicants-Whether_ _a_ _fundanientrd_ _right-Constitution_ _of_ _India Article_ 14, 19(1)(g) _and_ 301. _Retrospective Legislation_ _is_ _valid_ _in_ _case_ _of_ _intoxicants-Constitution_ _of India_ _Art._ 47. D While implementing the provisions of the Punjat, Excise Act, 1914 as in force in the Union Territory of Delhi, the concerned authority used to hold auction for grant of licence in Form L-10 for selling country liquor and at one such auction held on 29th March 1978, the petitioners' bids were accepted and they were granted licences in Form L-10 for the period 1st April 1978 to 31st Mairch 1979. The licence included a condition to sell a bottle of 750 ml. of country liquor at Rs. 15/- which was _inter alia_ made up at excise duty E (<tyled as still-head duty) at the rate of Rs. 10.23 and profit of licensee at the rate of Rs. 2/-· In W.P. 716/78, validity of the levy of 'still head duty' was challenged by certain petitioners _inter alia_ on the ground tha-t it was nothing but countervailing duty and in the absence of manufacture of liquor in Delhi, countervailing duty on the import of liquor cannot be constitutionally levied. This contention found favour with a learned single judge of the Delhi High Court and a number of Letters Patent Appea.ls were filed against that Judgn1ent. F :-- 1 During the pendency of these appeals President of India pron1ulgated an Ordinance purporting to amend the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, styled as Punjab Excise (Delht Amendment) Ordinance, 1979 with retrospective effect, conferring power on the Government under the provisions of the Act to levy 'special duty' on the import of country liquor in Delhi at rates not exceeding that set out in Schedule I~A which was introduced in the Act by the Ordinance. Pursuant to the Ordinance amending the Principal Act, the Delhi Fiscal Duty Order, 1979 was issued levying special duty at the rates set out in the order on import of country liquor into Delhi. Some of the petitioners questioned the validity 'generally of the Ordinance and specifically of the impost of special duty in Civil Writ No. 16/79. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court heard the Letters Patent Appeals and the Writ Petition No. 116/79 and by a common judgment held the ordinance as well as the impost of the special duty thereunder valid, dismissed the \Vrit Petition and a11owed the Letters Patent Appeals. G H A B c D E F 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 s.c.R. Dismissing the special leave petitions, the Court HELD ; 1. Scheme underlying distribution of Legislative power in Part XI Chapter I and especially Articles 246 and 248 is that except the matters spe<:ifically enumerated in List II (State List) in the Seventh Schedule, Parliament's plenary po\Ver to legislate extends to all conceivable matters which can be topic of legislation, and even this limitation on its power vanishes \Vhen Parliament legislates for part of the territory of India not included in a State. The three dimensional picture becomes complete, viz. (i) to select topic for legislation (ii) enactment of legislation on the topic and (iii) to impose tax in respect of such subject matter of legislation by reference to Art. 248 which confers power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in Lists JI and III including the po\ver to impose tax not mentioned in either of those lists. Under Art 246 ( 4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India, not included in a State notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State· List. Power of Parliament thus to legislate with respect to any ·matter for Delhi, territory not included in a State is unabridged or unfettered by the entries in the State List. Further residuary power of legislation including the power to levy tax is conferred on Parliament by the combined operation of Articles 246(4), 248(1l and (2) and_ Entry 97 in the Union List. That power is untrammelled by the limitations prescribed by Article 246(2) and (3) and Entry 51 of State List and is plenary and absolute subject only to such restrictions as imposed by the Constitution. [659 G-H, 660 A-Cl _Mithan Lal_ v. _State_ _of_ _Delhi,_ [1959] SCR 445 @ 451; referred to. 2. While legislating for the Union Territories the Parliament unhampered by Articles 246(2) and (3) but enriched by Article 248(1) and (2) could legislate on any of the topics either in the List I and III or in List TI or in exercise· of the residuary power under Entry 97. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent Parliament from combining its powers under one or other Entry with its power under Entry 97. Parliament can rely on the powers under specified Entries 1 to 96 List I and supplement them with the powers under Entry 97 List I and Article 24 or even the powers under Entries in the concurrent list. There is no dearth of legislative competence of Parliament to enact legislation for a territory not included in a State because the power to legislate takes within its sweep matters included in all the three lists and added to it is the residuary power on matters not specifically included in any entry in any of the three..lists. [661 D-G] #####, G H If exercise or countervailing duty could be levied on country liquor JOOnufactured or imported into Delhi, Parliament \VOuld not lack competence to levy the same only because levy of such duty on alcoholic liquors for human consumption is within the competence of a State. As country liquor is not manufactured in Delhi, the Parliament could not under Entry 51 of the State List levy either excise or countervailing duty on it. Merely because Parliament could not levy countervailing duty on country liquor imported into Delhi because country liquor is not manufactured in Delhi it does not exhaust the power of Parliament to levy some other duty on the import of liquor if it is otherwise constitutiona11y permissible. [660 D-Fl _Union_ _of_ _India_ v. _H._ S. _Dhillon,_ [1972] 2 SCR 33; followed. SATPAL & CO. V. LT. GOVERNOR 653 3. With:· the advancement of society, expanding horizons of scientific and technical knowledge, probe into the mystery of creation, it is impossible to conceive that every imaginable, head of legislation within human comprehension and within the foreseeable future could have been within the contemplation of the founding fathers and was, therefore, specifically enumerated in one or the other of the th,ree Lists, meaning thereby that three Lists were exhaustive of Government2.l action and activity. D'emands of welfare State, hopes and aspirations and expectations in a developing society and the complex \VOrld situation \Vith inter-dependence and hostility amongst nations may necessitate legislation on some such topics that even for visionaxy they could not have been within the contemplation of the founding fathers. Con1plex modem governmental administration in a federal set up providing distribution of legislative power coupled with po\•,rer of judicial review may raise such situations that a subject of legisla· tion may not squarely fall in ony specific entry in List I or II. Simultaneou<;ly on correct appraisal it may not be covered by any entry in List II though apparently or on a superficial view it may be covered by an entry in List IL In such a situation Parliiln1ent would have po\ver to legislate on the subject in exercise of residuary power under Entry 97, List I and it \vou1d not be proper to unduly circumscribe, corrode or w;;.ittle down this power by a process of interpretation by saying that subject cf legislation \Vas present to the ntind of the framers of the Constitution because apparently it falls in one of the entries in List II and thereby deny power to legislate under Entry 97. The history of freedo1n struggle demonstrates in unequivocal ternlS the in1portan~e of residuary power of legislation beitig conferred on Parliament. Accordingly, once the power of Parliament to legislate on a topic is not expressly taken a\vay by any constitutional provision, it remains intact under Entry 97 of l.ist I. [662 G-H, 663 A-DJ Undoubtedly e:x<:ise and countervailing duties on alcoholic. liquors for human coHsumption \\'ere within the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution. That is a specific topic of legislation in List lT. It does not exhaust a conceivable levy that can be legitimately imposed on such items if otherwise they could be legally imposed on such items by reference to constitutional power to levy the same. And Entry 97 is a complete answer to the contention. [663 D-E] A B c D E ' _I/is HoUness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru_ v. _State_ _of_ _Kerala,_ [1973] F Suppl. S.C.R. I; explained and discussed. _l._ _C._ _Golaknath_ v. _State_ _of_ _Punjab,_ [1967] 2 SCR 672; referred to. _Union_ _of India_ v. _H._ _S._ _Dhillon,_ [1972] 2 SCR 33, affirmed . 4. Terminal tax is entirely different from the special duty sought to be imposed by the impugned Ordinance. The impost is on entry of country liquor into Delhi to ·be recovered by the Delhi Administration for its own use. Delhi Administration and Delhi Municipal Administration are entirely different, and, therefore, it cannot be said that Entry 52 excludes the power of the Parliament to levy tax on in1port of country liquor in Delhi. [663 F-G] G _5._ If on the same subject the legislature choosesi to levy tax hvice· over there is no inherent invalidity in the fiscal adventure. More so when Special Duty levied by Parliament and the terminal tax imposed by the Municipal Administra- H tion on the import of liquor in Delhi can be traced to independent source of power. [664 A-Bl 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 s.c.R. A _Avinder Singh and_ _Ors._ v. _State_ _of_ _Punjab and_ _Ors._ [1979) 1 SCR 845; followed. ###### _)(_, 6. The idea conveyed by the expression "colourable legislation" j3 that although apparently a legislature in passing a statute purported to be within the limits of its powers, yet in substance and i~ reality it transgressed those powers, the transgression being veiled by what appears, on proper examination, to be a mere pretence or disguise. Applying this test it is difficult to say that the impugned impost is either a camouflage or a colourable legislation. [664 G-H] Merely because a statute was found to be invalid on the ground of lepjative competence that does not permanently inhibit the legislature from re-enacting the statute if the power to enact the same is properly traced and establ~hed. In such a situation it would not be correct t('; say that the subsequent legift!ation would be merely a colourable legislation or a camouflage to re-enact the invalid ated previous legislation. [665 E-F] _K._ C. _Gajapati Narayan Dea_ v. _State_ _of Orissa,_ [1954] SCH. 1, _MahariUUl_ _Sri_ _layvant Singhji Ramnal Singhli etc._ v. _State_ _of_ _Gujarat,_ [1962) Suppl. 2 SCR 411 @ 440, _Patel Gordhandas Rargovindas_ v. _Municipal Commissioner, Alimed-_ _abad,_ [1964] 2 SCR 608, _Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. and_ _Ors._ v. _Broach Borough_ _Municipality and Ors.,_ [1970) 1 SCR 388; referred to. 7. The expression 'excisable article' which alone can be the subject matter of levy special duty is merely descriptive· of the goods subject to charge. It is <mly an identifying mark, a tag, whlch would attract special duty. If liquor was manufactured in Delhi it v.:uuld be an excisable article. It is that article on which, if manufactured in Delhi excise duty could be levied which when imported would provide the taxing event for the levy of special duty because in the absence of manufacture in Delhi countervailing duty cannot be imposed Upon it. The expreiSEiion is used for identifying the subject-matter of impost and nothing more need be r'ead into it. [666D·E] r' I B c D E 8. There is no fundamental right to do trade or business in intoxicaBis. The State under its regulatory powers, has right: to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants its manufacture, storage, export import, ~ale and possession. In all their manifestations these 1ights are vested in the State F and indeed without such vesting there can be no effective regulation of various forms of activities in relation to intoxicnnf5, [666 l-1. 667 Al If there is no fundamental right to carry on trade or business in liquor, there is no question of its abridgement by any restriction \vhich can be styled as unreasonable. Ther State under its regulatory power has a right to control or even to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants apart from G anything else, its import too. This power of control is question of gociety's right to self-protection and it rests upon the right of the State to act for the health, moral and \vclfare of the people. Liquor traffic is a source of pauperism and crime. Such an impost, therefore, is one in the public interest for preserving public health and public moral and is not one as infringing the inter!tate freedom of trade and commerce. All taxes are imposed in public inter~t. r667 F-R 668 A-BJ ff In the instant case the Preamble to the impugned Ordinance clearly recites that the special duty on the importation of country liquor into Delhi an endeavour towards bringing about prohibition of consumption of alcoholic drinks, and, _)/ SATPAL & CO. V. LT. GOVERNOR 655 therefore, it is a step in th,e. direction of safeguarding public health and with a view to r~lising the goal fixed in Article 47 of the Constitution. It is a fiscal n1easure and the one safeguarding public health and even public morals became it is well recognised that liquor tr~e is instinct with injury to individual and community and has serious side-effects recognized everywhere in every age. Not to control alcohol business is to abdicate the right to rule for the good of the people. [669 B, G-H, 670 A] _Har Shanker and Ors. etc._ v. _Dy._ _Excise and Taxation_ _Con11niss1011er_ _and_ _Ors._ [1975] 3 SCR 254, _State_ _of_ _Bombay_ v. _R.M.D. Chamarbaug/iwala,_ [1957] SCR 0874; _P._ _N. Kaushal and Ors._ v. _Union_ _of_ _India and Ors.,_ [1978] 3 SCC 558; applied. _Crowlty_ v. _Christafisen,_ 54 Law Ed. 620; quoted \Vith approval. _P._ _N. Kaushal and_ _Ors._ v. _Union_ _of_ _India_ _and_ _Ors.,_ [1979] 1 SCR 122; referred to. 9. There is no substance in the contention that the retrospectivity of the Ordinance is illegal, and invalid. The argument overlooks the twin objects sought to be achieved by the measure namely, validating an import which was found to bo inY8lid on the ground that it was countervailing duty which could not have been legitimately imposed and also tho object to •afeguard public health •ud public mor.l [670 B-D] _Prith11i_ _COtton MUls Ltd. and Anr._ v. _Broach Borough_ _Municipality_ _and_ _OrJ.,_ [1,70] I SCR 388; applied. A B c D 10. _The altruistic grievance of the petitioner by proxy for consumers strikes E as hollow because even with the impost the petitioners' profit of Rs. 21~ per bottle is guaranteed and they are in no way adversely affected by the imp~t because the levy is passed on to consumers, except for t1'e detention of their money for a day or two when they pay in advance while taking the bottles from the Warehouse and recovers it when they sell the bottle and this detention of their money for a period of two days is a trivality and is a part of <1ny busine~s. ~~ F r CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 2585-2594/79 . From the Judgment and Order dated 9-3-1979 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 116-122 and 135-137/79. G _V._ _S._ _Desai_ (In SLP 2585), _L._ _N._ _Sinha_ (In SLP. 2586), _L._ _M._ _Singhvi_ (In SLP 2587), _P.P._ _Rao_ (In SLP 2588), _R._ C. _Verma,_ _Y._ _K._ _Sabharwal,_ _D._ _P._ _Mukherjee,_ (In SLP 2589-94) and _A._ _K._ _Ganguli_ (In all the S.L.Ps.) for the Petitioners. _Soli_ _!._ _Sorabiee,_ ~ddl. _Sol._ _Genl._ _R._ _K._ _Bhatt_ and _R._ _N._ _Sachthey_ for the Respondent. H A B c D E II' G H 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1979] 3 S.C.R. The Order of the Court was delivered by D11sA1, J. Law touching manufacture, import, use or,.consumption of liquor (as understood in common parlance) is recently vigorously assailed with almost afllicted sentimentalism that even though we have dhmissed this batch of Special Leave Petitions on 23rd March, 1979, in fairness to petitioners on whose behalf all possible contentions that can be formulated by research and dialectics were advanced with eloquence and devoid of inebriation likely to be caused by the subject-matter of dispute, we propose shortly to. state our reasons for dismissal of the petitions. To illuniine the contours of controversy events preceding the promulgation of the Ordinance amending the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 ('Act' for short), as in force in the Union Territory of Delhi ('Delhi' for short) styled as Punjab Excise (Delhi Amendment) Ordinance, 1979 ('Ordinance' for short) may be stated. Punjab Excise Act, 1914 has been extended to Delhi. While implementing the provisions of the Act, the concerned authority used to hold auction for grant of licence in Form L-10 for selling country liquor and at one such auction held on 29th March 1978 the petitioners' bids were accepted and they were granted licences in Form L-10 for the period 1st April 1978 to 31st March 1979. The licence included a condition to sell a bottle of 750 ml. of country liquor at Rs. 15/- which was, _inter_ _alia,_ made up of excise duly at the rate of Rs. 10.23 and profit of licensee at the rate of Rs. 2/-. This excise duty was styled as 'still head duly' for obvious reasons. In Writ Petition No. 716/78 filed in the High Court of Delhi by certain petitioners, validity of the levy of 'still head duty' was challenged _inter alia_ on the ground that it was nothing but countervailing duty and in the absence of manufacture of liquor in Delhi, countervailing duty on the import of liquor cannot be constitutionally levied. This contention found favour with a learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court and a number of Letters Patent Appeals were filed against that judgment which were pending in the High Court. In the mean time on 20th January 1979 the President of India, promulgated the Ordianance purporting to amend the Punjab Excise Act with retrospective effect and conferring power on the Government under the provisions of the Act to levy special duty on the import of country liquor in Delhi at rates not exceeding that set out in Schedule I-A which was introduced in the Act by the Ordinance Pursuant to the Ordinance amending the principal Act, the Delhi Fiscal Duty Order, 1979, was issued levying special duty at the rates set out in the order on import of country liquor into Delhi. Some of the petitioners questioned the validity generally of the Ordinance and specifically of the import of special duty in Civil Writ No. 116/79. A Division Bench of the Delhi _.I_ _>_ SATPAL & co. _v._ LT. GOVERNOR _(Desai,_ _J.)_ 657 High Court heard the Letters Patent Appeals against the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court as wen as the aforementioned writ petition and by a common judgment held the Ordinance as wen as th~ impost thereunder valid mid dismissed the writ petition and allowed the Letters Patent Appeals setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge. This bunch of petitions is filed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 116/79 and allied writ petitions and the Letters Patent Appeals. The cardinal question around which the various facts of controversy rotates turns upon the competence of Parliament to enact legislation under challenge which would directly impinge upon the competence of the President to issue the impugned Ordinance. Article 123 of thr Constitution enables the President to issue an Ordinance in the circumstances thereunder mentioned and the power to issn0 Ordi nance is co-extensive with the legislative power of Parliament _vide_ Article 123 (3). The question, therefore, is whether Parliament had the power to impose special duty on the import of country liquor in Delhi. Jn order to avoid the slightest confusion it must be reiterated that **the power of Parliament to legislate for Delhi** **is** **in** **question . .l\rticle** 246(1) confers exclusive power on Parliament to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule. Sub-article (3) confers similar powor on the Legislature of any State with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II. Sub-article (2) confers power both on Parliament and the State Legislature to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III (Concurrent List). Sub-article ( 4) reads as under : "Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the Territory of India not included m a State notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List". Article 248(1) provides that Parfament has exclusive power to make a~y law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List. In other words, residuary power of legislation is conferred on Parliament Sub-article (2) of Article 248 is material and may be extracted : "(2). Such power shall include the power of making any Jaw imposing a tax not mentioned in either of those Lists". **A** **B** c **D** **E** **G** **a** ~-... ###### " **A** **B** **c** **D** **E** 658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 S.C.R. Entry 84 in the Union List reads as under : "84. Duties of excise on tobacco and other goods manufactured or produced in India except : (a) alcoholic liquors for human consumption; (b) opium, Indian hemp and other narcotic drugs and narco**tics,** but including medicinal and toilen preparations containing alcohol or any substance included in sub-paragraph (b) nf **this** **entry".** Entry 97 of the Union List reads as under : "97. Any other matter not enumerated in List )( or List III including any tax not mentioned in either of those Lists". Entry 51 in the State Lis~ reads as under: "51. Duties of excise on the following goods manufactured or produced in the State and countervailing duties at the same or lower rates on similar goods manufactured or produced elsewhere in India : (a) alcoholic liquors for human consumption; (b) opium, Indian hemp and other narcotic drugs and **narcotics;** but not including medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol or any substance included in sub-paragraph (b) **F** of this entry". Entry 52 is as under : "52. Taxes on the entry of goods into a local area for **consumption, use or sale therein".** **G** **B** The relevant provisions of the impugned Ordinance may also be extracted for convenience of reference. The Ordinance in its Preamble states that by reason of certain excisable articles not being manufactured or produced in Delhi, one snch being con'ntry liquor, countervailing duty is not leviable on such articles which are imported into Delhi, and proceeds to define duty in clause S(a) of s. 3 as under: "(Sa). "duty" means the excise duty or countervailing duty or, as the case may be, special duty;" ' SATPAL & co. _v._ LT. GOVERNOR _(Desai,_ _!.)_ 659 Clause (c) was add,cd to clause (6) of s. 3 specifying the words "any spirit". Clause (18a) was added specifying thereunder the definition of 'special duty' which reads as under : "(18A). "Special duty" means a tax on the imporr of any excisable article being an article on which countervailihg duty as is mentioned in entry 51 of List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution is not imposable on the ground merely that such article is not being manufactured or produced in the territory to which this Act extends". Section 31 was amended enabling the Government to levy over and above excise duty a countervailing duty or special duty at such rate or rates not exceeding the rates set forth in Schedule IA which was al~o added by the Ordinance. The contention is that Entry 51 in the State List enables the State Legislature to levy duty of excise or countervailing duty on alcoholic liquors for human consumption and that the almost corresponding Entry 84 of the Union List denies power to Parliament to levy duty of excise on alcoholic liquors for human consumption. Pro ceeding further it was said that initially countervailing duty was levied on the country liquor imported in Delhi and when it was found that as country liquor was not manufactured in Delhi countervailing duty. could not be levied upon it, an attempt was made to levy the same duty by a camouflage of changing the name and that in pith and substance the Ordinance levies countervailing duty which Parliament had no power to levy particularly because country liquor on which duty is levied is not manufactured in Delhi. It is an admitted position that country liquor, the subject-matter of impost, is not manufactured in Delhi. It is again an admitted posi- F lion that as country liquor is not manufactured in Delhi, countervailing duty as is commonly understood could not be levied upon its import in Delhi. The question is : does that exhaust the power of Parliament to levy a duty on the import of country liquor into Delhi ? Scheme underlying distribution of legislative powers in t'art XI, ~ Chapter I ailci especially Articles 246 and 248 is that except the matters specifically enumerated in List II (State List) in the Seventh . Schedule, Parliament's plenary power to legislate extends to all conceivable matters which can be topic of legislation, and even this limitation on its power vanishes when Parliament legislates for part of the territory of India not included in a State. The three dimensional picture D becomes complete, viz., (i) to select topic for legislation; (ii) enactment of legislation on the topic; and (iii) to impose tax in respect A B c D E ' 660 SUPRE11E COURT REPORTS (1979] 3 S.C.R. A of such subject-matter. of legislation, by reference to Art. 248 which confers powtr to make any law with respect to any matter not enume-, -· rated in Lists II and III including the power to impose tax not men- X · tioned in either of those Lists. Under Article 246 ( 4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to ·any matter for any part of the B territory. of India not included in a State notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List. Power of Parfoment thus to legislate with respect to any matter for Delhi, territory not - - - included in a State, is unabridged or unfettered by the entries in the State List. Further, residuary power of legislation including. the power ##### • to levy tax is conferred on Parliament by the combined operation of c Articles 246(4), 248(1) & (2) and Entry 97 in the Union List. That ##### power is nntramelled by the limitations prescribed by.Articles 2~6(2) k State List. Further, residuary power of legislation including. the power to levy tax is conferred on Parliament by the combined operation of and (3) and Entry 51 of State List and is plenary and absolute subject only to such restrictions as are imposed by the Constitu!i:Jn and we find none such which is material to the present question _(vide_ _·!_ I _Mithan_ _Lal_ v. _State_ _of Delhi)(')._ D F G R . Accordingly, if excise or countervailing duty could be levi·od on country liquor manufactured or imported into Delhi, albeit other conditions for the levy of such duty being fulfilled, Parliament would not lack competence to levy the same only because levy of such duty on alcoholic liquors for human consumption is within the competence of a Sta!e. But it must be confessed that as country liquor is not manufactured in Delhi, the Parliament could 1101 under Entry 51 of the State List levy either excise or countervailing duty on it. Merely because· Parliament could not levy countervailing duty on country liquor imported into Delhi because country liquor is not manufactured in Delhi, it does not exhaust the power of Parliament to levy some other duty on the import of Uquor if it is otherwise constitutiPnally permissible b~ covered by the residuary entry. In fact the argument went so far that before resort could be had to the residuary Entry 97 the Court in . It was, however, said that Entry 51 in State List being a specific entry providing for levy of duty either on manufacture or import of country liquor and there being. no other specific entry enabling to levy special ·duty it is inconceivable that the framers of the Constitution ~ should have ldt some such levy on the import of country liquor in 1 respect of Delhi under residuary entry. In other words, it was said that,. _J_ where there is a specific entry the kgislation must squarely ftill within _,.,...the entry and correspondingly is must be assum'd that it would not C1)[t95ll S.C.R. 445 to _451_ SATPAL & co. _v._ LT. GOVERNOR _(Desai,_ _!.)_ 661 its exploration to ascertain under which Entry the legislation falls, must proceed from the beginning and in its journey till Entry 97 if it falls somewhere, removing the camouflage under which the legislation is sought to be taken out from the specific entry, it would not be proper to say that the legislation is covered by the residuary entry. Whenever A B c D E F G .. legislative competence is in question attempt of the Courts is to find out whether the legislation squarely falls in one or the other entry. If a particular legislation is covered by any specific entry well and good. If it does not, the second question would be : is it beyond the legislative competence of Parliament? In undertaking this exercise it is quite often known that a legislation may be covered by more than one entry because an analysis bas shown that the entries are overlapping. 1f the legislation may fall in one entry partly and part of it may be covered by the residuary entry, the legislation would none-the-less be immune from the attack on the ground of legislative competence. This was the approach adopted by a 7 Judges Bench of this Ciurt in _Unior._ _of India_ v. _H._ S. _Dhillon(')_ wherein while examining the constitutio11al validity of the amended Wealth Tax Act which included the capital value of agricultural land for the purpose of computing net wealth, the controversy was whether the impugned Act was a Jaw with respect to entry, including Entry 49 in the List II or was it one under Entry 86 read with Entry 97 or Entry 97 itself of the List I. Repelling the contention of legislative incompetence this Com t held that there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent Parliament from combining its powers under one or other Entry with its power under Entry 97. The terse observation is that this Court knows no principle which debars Parliament from relying on the powers uuder the specified entries 1 to 96, List I and supplement them with the powers under Entry 97, List I and Article 248 or even the powers under entries in the Concurrent List. This authoritative pronouncement would answer the conten~10n that while legislating for the Union Territories the Parliament unhampered by Articles 246(2) and (3) but enriched by Article 248(1) and (2) could legislate on any of the topics either in the List I or in List II or in exercise of the residuary power under Entry 97. There is thus no dearth of legislative competence of Parliament to enact legislation for a territory not included in a State because the power to legislate takes within its sweep matters included in all the three Lists and added to it is the residuary power on matters not specifically included in any entry in any of the three Lists. It was, however, said that the observations in _Dhillon's case_ (supra) are no more good law in view of the opinion of Judges constituting (I) [19721 2 S.C.R. 33. H A B c D E F G H 662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 S.C.R. majority in _His Holiness Kesavananda_ _Bharati Sripadagalavaru_ v. _State_ _of_ _Kera/a(')._ The controversy in _Kesavananda_ _Bharat i's_ case was about the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and a contention being the spill over from _J.C. Golaknath_ v. _State_ _of_ _Punjab(")_ was that apart from Article 368, Entry 97 of List I would confrr power on Parliament to amend the Constitution. After pointing out that when all the three Lists were exhaustively drawn up it is difficult to believe that an important power would be kept hidden in Entry 97 of the Union List leaving to the off chance of the courts locating that power in that entry, it was said that if a subject of legislation was present to the minds of the framers of the Constitution, it could not Lave been left to be found by the Courts in the residuary powers. Mr. Scervai's commentary at p. 1264 on Constitutional Law of India, 2nd Edn., was pressed into service wherein it is ob>erved that _a forteori_ if a subject of legislative power was promill'~ntly present to the minds of the framers of our Constitution, they would not have left it to be found by Courts in the residuary power. Proceeding ahead it was submitted that while enacting Entry 51 in List II the subicct of levying duty on import of alcoholic liquor was present to the minds of the framers of the Constitution and, therefore, it is futile to search that power in the residuary Entry. The observations in _Kesavancmda's_ case (supra) have to be kept in focus in the context of the controversy whether Article 368 confers specific power of amendment of the Constitution and it was sought to be brushed aside by saying that it merely provided procedure for amendment of the Constitution and, therefore, the power for amendment must be located in the residuary Entry 97 01 the Union List. The position here is materially different. With the advancement of society, expanding horizons of sci~nti­ fi.c and technical knowledge, probe into the mystery of creation, it is impossible to conceive that every imaginable head of legislation within human comprehension and within the foreseeable future could have been within the contemplation of the founding fathers and was, therefore, specifically enumerated in one or the other of three Lists, meaning the;cby that thre;, Lists were exhaustive of Governmental action and activity. Demands of welfare State, hopes and aspirations and expectations in a developing society and the complex '."orld situation with intEI-dependence and hostility amongst nations may necessitate legislation on some such topics that even for visionary they could not have lxcn within the contemplation of the founding fathers. Complex modern governmental administration in a federal set up pro (ll [1973] Suppl. S.C.R. I. (2) [1967] 2 S.C.R. 672. >' I SATPAL & co. _v._ LT. GOVERNOR _(Desai,_ _!.)_ 663 viding distribution of legislative powers coupled with power of judicial review may raise such situations that a subject of legislation may not squarely fall in any specific entry in List I or III. Simultaneously on correct appraisal it may not be covered by any entry in List II though apparently or on a superficial view it may be covered by an entry in List II. In such a situation Parliament would have power to legislate on the subject in exercise of residuary power under Entry 97, List I and it would not be proper to unduly circumscribe, corrode or whittle down this power by saying that subject of legislation was present to the mind of the framers of the Constitution because apparently it falls in one of the entries in List II and thereby deny power to legislate under Entry 97. The history of freedom struggle demonstrates in unequivocal terms the importance of residuary power of legislation being co'nferred on Parliament. Therefore, the scope and .ambit of Entry 97 need not be whittled down or circumscribed by a proce£S of interpretation. In any case majority decision in _Dhillon's_ _case_ (supra) is neither overruled not cicpartcd from in _Kesavananda's_ _case_ (supra). Accordingly, once the power of Parliament to legislate on a topic is not expressly taken away by any constitutional provision, it remains intact under Entry 97 of List I. Undoubtedly, excise and countervailing duties on alcoholic liquors for human consumption were within the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution. That is a specific topic of legislation in List IL It <loes not exhaust all conceivable levy that can be legitimately imposed on snch items if otherwise they could be legally levied by reference to constitutional power to levy the same. And Entry 97 is a complete answer to the contention. A B c D E F G H T It was incidentally urged that Entry 52 in the State List which enables the levying of taxes on entry of goods in local area for consumption, use or sale therein was also within the contemplation uf the founding fathers and that power under Entry 52 having been exercised by the Delhi Municipal Administration in the form of terminal tax the same cannot be arrogated by Parliament to itself. Terminal tax is entirely dillerent from the special duty sought to be imposed by the impugned Ordinance. The impost is on entry of country liquor into Dell1i to be recovered by the Delhi Administration for its own use. Delhi Administration and Delhi Municipal Administration are entirely different, and therefore, it cannot be said that Entry 52 excludes the power of the Parliament to levy tax on import of country liquor in Delhi. Incidentally, the argument is that the taxing event being th~ import ~ of liquor in Delhi it is exposed to double taxation, namely, the special A B c D E F G H 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1979] 3 S.C.R. duty levied by Parliament and the terminal tax imposed by the .Municipal Administration and that is impermissible. Titis has merely to be mentioned to be rejected in view of the decision of this Court in _Avinder Singh_ _&_ _Ors._ v. _State_ _of_ _Punjab_ _&_ _Ors.,(')_ wherein it was observea that if on the same subject the legislature chooses to levy tax twice over there is no inherent invalidity in the fiscal adventure save wherever prohibitions exist. (I) [1979! I S.C.C. 137. (2) [19541 S.C.R. I. IJ) [1962] Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 411 at 440. It was next contended that what is sought to be done by the impugned Ordinance is to circumvent the decision of the learned single Judge of the High Court which invalidated the levy of countervailing duty and that at best it is a colourable legislation and that in pith and substance it is re-introduction of countervailing duty under a different nomenclature and hence unsustainabk If by a legislation tax is sought to be imposed in exercise of certain legislative power which under judicial review is found to be wanting, it does not prohibit the legislature from exercising the same power if it can be traced to provisions of tl1e Constitution. Merely because an incorrect exercise of legislative power under a misconception of power itself is once invalidated that very legislative power if it is traceable to provisions in the Constitution cannot be struck down on the ground that it is a colourable legislation or a mere camouflage. Undoubtedly initially countervailing duty was levied but it was found that as country liquor was not manufactured in Delhi legally it was impermissible to levy countervailing duty. This is admitted in the Preamblo;; of the Ordinance itself. It was a constitutional error to have levied such a duty and the same was pomted out. Now, if the very duty could be levied under . the power which is available it can never be said that it is a colcurable exercise of power or that the new impost is a camouflage for the old one. What is colourable legislation was explained by this Court in _K._ _C._ _Gajapati Narayan Dea_ v. _State of Onissa,_ ( [2] ) and it was re-aflirmed in _Maharana Shri Jayvant Singhji Ranmal Singhji etc._ v. _State_ _cf_ _Gujarat.(')_ This Court said that the idea conveyed by the expreMion .. "colourable legislation" is that although apparently a legislature in passing a •tatute purported to act within the limits of its powers, yet in substance and in reality it transgressed those powers, the transgression being veiled by what appears, on proper examination, to be a more pretence or disguise. Applying this test it is difficult to say that the impugned impost is either a camouflage or a colourable legislation. Conditions for levy of countervailing duty may ·not be satisfied. That # • SATPAL & co. _v._ LT. GOVERNOR _(Desai,_ _J.)_ 665 A B c D E p G H does not debar the Parliament from levying tax on import of country liquor if it has otherwise power to do so. It would be too trik a saying that if countervailing duty cannot be imposed there would be no power to impose duty in any form on the import of country liquor into a territory where that country liquor is not manufactured. In ' fact, where particular pre-requisites for levying a tax are not satisfied and it is so pointed out by a Court of law, the legislature would not lack power to levy that tax if it could be traced to the provisions of the Constitution. In such a situation Legislature has power to set at naught the judgment of the court by resort to appropriate power. 'This is well settled by the decision of this Court in _Patel Gordhandas_ _Hargovindas_ v. _Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad,(_ _[1]_ _)_ where the word 'rate' as used in Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, came l'tp for inrerpretation and it was held that it can be imposed on the annual letting value of the property but not on the capital value of the property. The legislature stepped in by enacting Gujarat Imposition of Tax by Municipalities (Validation) Act, 1963, providing in s. 3 thereof assessment and collection of rate on lands and buildings on the basis of capital valne or a percentage of the capital value and declaring the past levy to be valid by further providing that tax on lands and buildings may be imposed ei:her on the basis of annual letting value or on the basis of capital value. When the amending and validating Act was questioned m _Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd._ _&_ _Anr._ v. _Broach Borough_ _Municipality_ _&_ Ors.,( [2] ) this Court observed that the legislature exercised its undoubted powers of redefining 'rate' so as to equate it to a tax on capital value and convert the tax purported to be collected as a 'rate' into a tax on lands and buildings, and thus got rid of the judgment in _Patei Gordhandas's_ case, (supra). It would thus folluw that merely because a statute was found to be invalid on the ground of legislative compdence that does not permanently inhibit the Legislature from re-enacting the statute if the power to enact the same is properly traced and ~stablished. In such a situation it would not be correct to r say that the subsequent legislation would be merely a colourable legis _, #### • ' **..** ...•. · ~ •••••• / . ### I lation or a c.amonflage to re-enact the invalidated previous legislation . Jn passing it was mentioned that there is inherent evidence _to_ show that the fresh impost wos nothing but the invalidated countervailing duty under a guise of different nomenclature. It was said that special duty can be levied under the Act amended by the Ordinance only on the impnrt cf any 'excisable article' being an article on which countervailing duty as is mentioned in Entry 51 of List, 2, Seventh Scheclule to the Cons;i1ution is not imposable on the ground merely that such -(lj [1964]TS.C.R. 608. (2\ [1970] I S.C.R. 388. 4-3JOSCI/79 ' " _L_ A B c D E F G H The next important contention was that this impost imposed unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of inter-State trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed by Article 301 or the freedom to carry on trade or business in liquor is a fundamental right under Article 19(1) being not m public interest, the enactment is constitutionally invalid. 'That raises the oft repeated vexc :I question whether right to carry on trade or business in liquor is a fun< lamental right under Article 19 (I) {g) and tl\\lt same considerations would apply for acting under Article 301. This quostion has cropped up before the Court at regular intervals but it would be sufficient to take note of two decisions to dispose of the contention. In _Har Shankar_ _&_ _Ors. etc._ v. _Dy. Excise_ _&_ _Taxation_ _Commis.1ior.e1_ _&_ _Ors.(_ _[1]_ _)_ after referring to _Crowley_ v. _Christan<en,(")_ and several cases of this Court it was in terms stataj that there is no fundamental right to do trade or business in intoxicants. The State ---- --· (I) (19751 3 S.C.R. 254. (2) 54 Law. Ed. 620. 666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 s.c.R. article is not being manufactured or produced in the territory to which the Act is extended. Reference was then made to the definition of 'excisable article' in s. 3 of the Act. Excisable article has been defined to mean (a) an alcoholic liquor for human consumption, or (b) any intoxicating drug, or ( c) spirit, the last being added by the impugned Ordinance. Apart from the definition, it was urged that excisable article in common parlance o.r by judicial interpretation has been understood to mean article on which excise is levied, or · leviable. Proceeding further it was said that as country liquor was not manufactured h1 Delhi, excise could not be levied on it nor countervailing duty could be imposed on its import though that very liquor where J~ manufactured may be an excisable article in that area. It was, there- _,-.!_ fore, said that subject-matter of impost being an excisable article, ' .._ meaning if ruanufactured in Delhi excise could be levied on it, the · special duty is nothing but invalidated countervailing duty on excisable article. There is no merit in this submission because the expression 'excisable article' which alone can be the subject-matter of levy of special duty is merely descriptive of the goods subject to charge. It is only an identifying mark, a tag, which would attract special duty. If liquor was manufactured in Delhi it would be an excisable article. It is that article on which, if manufactnred in Delhi, excise could be levied which when imported would provide the taxing event for the levy of special duty because in the absence of manufacture in Delhi countervailing duty cannot be imposed upon it. The expression is used for identifymg the subject-matter of impost and nothing more need be read into it. ...,. f ' T 'SATPAL "' co. _v._ LT. GOVERNOR _(Desai,_ J.) 667 uuder its regulatory powers, has right to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants--its manufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. In all their manifestations, these rights are vested in the State and indeed without such vesting there can be no effective regulation of various forms of activities in relation to intoxicants. In reaching this conclusion the Court took note of an important observation made in the _State_ _of Bombay_ v. _R._ _M. D._ _Chamarbaugwala,(')_ which may be extracted as under: "We find it difficult to persuade ourselves that gambling was ever intended to form any part of this ancient country's trade, rnmmerce or intercourse _to_ be declared as free under Art. 301. It !s not our purpose nor is it necessary for us in deciding this case to attempt an exhaustive definition of the **word** **'lrade', 'business',** **or** **'intercourse'.** **We** **are,** **however,** clearly oi opinion that whatever else may or may not be regarded as falling within the meaning of these words, gambling cannot certainly be taken as one of them. We are convinced and satisfied that the real purpose of Arts. 19(1) (g) and 301 could not possibly have been to guarantee or declare the freedom of gambling. Gambling activities from their very nature and in essence are extra-commercium although the external forms, formalities and instruments of trade may be employed and they are not protected either by Art. 19(1) (g) or Art. 301 of our Constitution". After extracting these observations this Court observed in _Har Shwkar's_ case (supra) that the reasons mentioned by Das, C. J. for holding that there can be no fundamental right to do trade or business in an activity like gambling apply with equal force to the alleged right _to_ trade in liquor and those reasons may not be brushed aside by restricting them to gambling operations. Recently, in _P._ _N._ _Kaushal_ _&_ _Ors._ v. _Union_ _of_ _India_ _&_ _Ors.,(2)_ after an exJ;austive review of all previous decisions, this conclusion was affirmed that there is no fundamental right to trade or business in nauseous drinks which includes liquor. If there is no fundamental right to carr; on trade or business in liquor, there is no question of its abridgement by any restriction which can be styled as unreasonable. In fact, as stated in _Har_ _Shankar's_ case, (supra) the State under its regulatory power has a right to control or even to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants apart from anything else, its import (I) [1957] S.C.R. 874. (2) [1978] 3 s.c.c. 558. **B** **c** **D** **E** ## • **G** **H** A B c D E F G H "the notification levying duty at the enhanced rate is purely a fiscal measure and cannot be said to be a reasonable restriction on the freedom of trade in the public interest. .. Without entering upon an exhaustive categorisation of what may be deemed "required in the public interest", it may be said that restrictions which may validly be imposed under Art. 304(b) are those which seek to protect public health, safety, morals and property within the territory". Since _Kalyam Stores_ case (supra) judicial opinion on the vexed question of right to carry on trade or business in intoxicating drinks has undergone a sea change culminating into _Har Shankar's_ case (supra) which again is a decision of 5 Judges Constitution Bench of this Court. Unfortunately the judgment in _Kalyani Stores_ case is not referred to in _Har Shankar's_ case. However, th•e undisputed position that now emerges is that there is no fundamental right to do trade or business in in to~cants. Once that latter pronouno~ment is u'nambiguous and incontrovertible a regulatory measure imposing a tax cannot be questioned on the ground of unreasonableness or want to public interest because one must not lose sight of the well accepted legal proposition !bat all taxes are imposed in public interest. Even apart from this, the majority judgment in _Kalyani Stores_ case (supra) clearly recognises the test of (I) [1966] ! [S.C.R. 865. 668 SUPll.EME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 s.c.R. too. This power of control is question of society's right to selfprotection and it rests upon the right of the State to act for the health, moral and welfare of the people. Liquor traffic is' a source of pauperism and crime. In this background <it is now too late in the day to entertain an argument that imposition of tax on the import of liquor which serves the double purpose of restraining its use by making it costly and prohibiting its use on the grorn:id that it trenches upon the manufacturers slowly and gradually to restrict its manufacture directly impinging upon its unrestricted consumption. Such an impost, therefore, can ~ be said to be one in the public interest for preserving public health and _ ~ .,. public morals and cannot be said to be one as infringing the mter-State ;J.. freedom of trade and commerce. Mr. Rao, who appeared for some of the petitioners specifically submitted that this question is no more _res-mtegra_ in view of the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in _Kalyani Stores_ v. _The State_ _of Orissa_ & _Ors.(_ _[1]_ _)_ In that case the validity of a Notification enhancing the duty on the import of foreign liquors from Rs. 40/- to Rs. 70/- per L.P. Gallon was questioned on the ground that it interferes with freedom of inter-State trade and commerce guaranteed by Article 301. This challenge was upheld by the majority decision observing that SATPAL & co. _v._ LT. GOVERNOR _(Desai,_ J.) 66 9 reasonable restrictions to be judged in the light of the purpose for which the restrictiou is imposed, i.e. as may be required in the public interest and restrictions that may validly be imposed under Article 304(b) are those which seek to protect public health, safety, morals and property withiu the territory. The Preamble to the impugned Ordinance clearly recites that the special duty on the importa•ion of country liquor into Delhi is an endeavour towards bringing about prohibition of consumptiou of alcoholic driuks, and, therefore, it is a step in the direction of safeguarding public health. Incidentally, however, it was stated that when the Minister piloted the Bill replacing the Ordinance it was in terms said that the Act replacing the Ordinance was purely a fiscal measure and had nothing to do with the prohibition. lrt the same breath it was stated that the Government was committed to total prohibition and would ;incerely try to achieve this objective. Opinion of the Minister would be hardly relevant in examining the object and purpose behind enacting a certain legislation. Provision in Punjab Excise Act, 1914, conferring power on the State to direct closure of liquor shops on certain days in a week, month or year was challenged as one not of a regulatory character but introduced with the avowed object of enforcing prohibition and a contention was raised that way back in 1914 the then rulers could not have thought of enforcing prohibition through the provisions of the Punjab Act which was specifically enacted for the purpose of collecting revenue from liquor vendors and indirectly from liquor consumers. This Court in _P._ _N. Kaushal's_ case (supra) while repelling this contention observed as under : "In short, while the imperial masters were concerned about the revenues they could make from the liquor trade they were not indifferent to the social control of this business which, if left unbridled, was fraught with danger to health, morals, public order and the flow of life without stress or distress. Indeed, even collection of revenue was intertwined with orderly milieu; and these twin objects are reflected in the scheme and provisions of the Act". The present levy under the amended provisions of the Act in 1t3 application to Delhi could certainly be said to be one enacted both with the object of regulating the trade or business in intoxicants and with a view to realising the goal fixed in Article 47 of the Constitution Therefore, one can look upon this measure both as a fiscal measure and the one safeguarding public health and even public morals because it is . A B c E F G B T 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 s.c.R. A well recognised that liquor trade is instinct with injury to individual and community and has serious side-effects recognised everywhere in every age. [Not to control alcohol business is to abdicate the right to rule for the good of the people] [see _P._ _N._ _Kaushafs_ case (supra)]. In this very breath it was, however, contended that if this Ordinance was promulgated with a view to advancing the policy of prohibition ## • enunciated in Art. 4 7 it could only be prospective and not retrospective c D E F G II In this very breath it was, however, contended that if this Ordinance was promulgated with a view to advancing the policy of prohibition enunciated in Art. 4 7 it could only be prospective and not retrospective because one cannot introduce prohibition retrospectively. This argument overiovks the twin objects sought to be achieved by the measure, namely, validating an import which was found to be invalid on the ground that it was countervailing duty which could not have been legitimately imposed, and also a measure to safeguard public health and public morals. These twin objects underlying the measure would clearly permit its being retrospective because retrospective validation of impost bas been recognised in a number of decisions (see _Prithvi_ _Cotton Mills_ case) (supra). Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the retrospectivity of the Ordinance is illegal and invalid. Having given the matter our anxious cohsideration not sw•yed in any manner by moral, religious, ethical or extraneous preachers' considerations the altruistic grievance of the petitioners by proxy for consumers strikes as hollow, because even with the impost the petitioners' profit of Rs. 2/- per bottle is guaranteed ahd they are in no way adversely affected by the impost because the levy is passed on to consumers. For years the impugned levy was paid. as countervailing duty. Then a loophole appeared which is sought to be plugged by a valid legislaticn. And even with this turmoil the licen&ee in L-10 Form having rountry liquor vend is assured of this profit of Rs. 2/- per bottle. The entire impost is passed on to the shoulder of consumers except for the detention of his money for a day or two when he pays in advance while taking the botiles from the Warehouse and recovers it when he sells the bottle and this detention of his money for a period of two days is a triviality which need not detain any one. It is a part of any business. Therefore, we see no substance in these petitions. V.D.K. _Petitions dismissed._