COURT: Supreme Court of India.
CITATION: (2005) 2 SCC 515.
PETITIONER: Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Anr. RESPONDENT: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: Decided on 20 January 2005.
BENCH: Before Chief Justice of India R.C. Lahoti and Justice Ruma Pal, Justice Arun Kumar, Justice G.P. Mathur, Justice C.K. Thakker.
The Appellants in this matters of which is the Godfrey Philips India ltd[1]., they were the lead petitioner where they were the manafactures, dealers, and sellers of the tobacco products such as the cigarettes and the chewing tobacco which they challenged the consitutional validity of three state enactments which are: the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Luxuries, 1955[2], Andhra Pradesh Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987[3] and the West Bengal Tax on Luxury Act, 1994[4] to the extent that the statue and imposed a levy on tobacco products by treating them as luxuries within the meaning of Entry 62[5], List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Entry 62[6] confer upon the state legislature the exclusive power to make laws with respect to tax on luxuries including taxes on entertainment amusement betting and gambling. The three states relied on the head of the legislative power which is the tax tobacco directly and treating it as an article of luxury account of its non-essential, indulgence character and thereby sort to place the levy outside the restaurant start with otherwise attached to a tax on the sale of purchase of courts namely, Entry 54 of the List II[7], Article 286[8] in the Constitution of India and Section 14[9] and 15[10] of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956[11] which declared and outside the Union Exclusive Domain over Excise Duty on the Tobacco under Entry 84[12] of List.
As the long proceed trail of the dispute before it reach the constitutional bench. The individual assess had approached the different High Court by way of the petition and shined under the law of
Article 226[13] of the Constitution, questioning both the wires of the respective state enactments and the assessment orders passed under them. Then result across to jurisdiction were not uniform and in some states the laws were, while the others upheld the system some parties agreed by an adverse outcome carried the matter for which eventually lead to the appeal against the decisions of the states striking it out or reading it down. These matter in the Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 568-569 of 1994 together with the connected civil appeals filed between 1995 and 2000 which were eventually later loved and pleased before the honourable Supreme Court Court of the india.
Because the challenge necessary required to re-examine the correctness of its all ruling in one of the most landmark cases which is A.B. Abdul Kadir v State of Kerala[14]. where a similarly frame luxury tax on tobacco had been of upheld without the specific arguments now raised the batch was referred to and finally heard by the Constitution bench of five judges as it involved a substantial question of interpretation of the Constitution and the correctness of the view expressed by earliest smaller branch eventually the judgement was delivered on 20 January 2005.
[1] Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2005) 2 SCC 515 (India).
[2] Uttar Pradesh Tax on Luxuries Act, 1955 (India).
[3] Andhra Pradesh Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987, Act No. 24 of 1987 (India).
[4] West Bengal Luxury Tax Act, 1994, West Bengal Act XV of 1994 (India).
[5] Constitution of India sched. 7, list II, entry 62 (India).
[6]ibid.
[7] Constitution of India sched. 7, list II, entry 54 (India).
[8] Constitution of India art. 286 (India).
[9] Central Sales Tax Act, No. 74 of 1956, § 14 (India).
[10] Central Sales Tax Act, No. 74 of 1956, § 15 (India).
[11]Ibid.
[12] Constitution of India sched. 7, list II, entry 84 (India).
[13] Constitution of India art. 226 (India).
[14]A.B. Abdul Kadir v State of Kerala. (1976) 2 SCC 759.