Appeal No 300 of 60
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 13 1958 of the Rajasthan High Court in DBC Writ Application No 58 of 1957
Chand Mal Lodha and Brijbans Kishore for the appellant
section K Kapur and D Gupta for the respondent
April 19
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J
The appellant Firm Ghulam Hussain Haji Yakoob 
Sons moved the Rajasthan High Court by a petition under article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition or other writ or appropriate order declaring that it was not liable to pay the customs duty sought to be levied on it by the Controller of Sirohi by his order of the 9th Feb 1956
It appears that one Mohammad Sagir had taken a contract for cutting forest of Haranj Amrapura from the Thakur of Nibaj on the 12th July 1946
The duration of this contract was five years and the purpose of the contract was to enable the contractor to prepare charcoal
This contract was subsequently transferred to the appellant by the said Sagir on the 13th September 1948
In due course the contract was extended by the Thakur of Nibaj by two years and on endorsement was made on it to that effect on the 15th April 1950
Under this contract the appellant prepared charcoal and exported it out of the State of Sirohi
The Assistant Commissioner Customs and Excise Sirohi took the view that the appellant was liable to pay 257 customs duty  As
8 per maund on the quantity of charcoal exported by it
The Asstt
Commissioner found that the charcoal thus exported by the appellant was 2 7 003 mds
Accordingly the said Asstt
Commissioner made a report to the Commissioner on the 11th February 1954
The matter was then dealt with by the Dy
Commissioner Customs  Excise and he passed on order that the appellant had exported charcoal without payment of duty
This order was made on the 17th December 1954
According to the finding made by the Dy
Commissioner the charcoal exported by the appellant after the 30th November 1948 amounted to 48650 maunds
On this basis the appellant was asked to pay Rs 24325  on account of the duty on export of charcoal  As 8 a maund
The appellant challenged the correctness of this order by preferring an appeal to the Government but its appeal was rejected on the 24th May 1956
The appellant came to know about this order on the 5th April 1957 when it was asked by the Tehsildar to deposit the duty assessed on it along with interest
Since the appellant did not deposit the amount the Customs authorities had in the meanwhile made a requisition to the Collector of Sirohi for recovery of the said amount and the Collector had issued a notice on the appellant under the Public Demand Recovery Act on the 9th February 1956
It is the validity of this notice that the appellant challenged by its present writ petition
The appellant s case was that the order purported to have been passed by the State Council of Sirohi by which the customs duty  As
8 was levied on charcoal was invalid and ultra vires and so it was not competent to the Customs authorities to levy any duty on the charcoal exported by the appellant and it was not competent to the Collector to issue a demand notice for the recovery of the said duty under the Public Demand Recovery Act
On the other hand the respondent the State 258 of Rajasthan disputed the correctness of the appellant s allegation that the duty had been illegally levied
It was urged by the respondent that the said duty had been levied validly by the resolution passed by the State Council which had been approved by Her Highness Shri Rajmata Saheba Since the said resolution had been duly passed by a competent authority the levy of the duty imposed on the appellant was valid and the Collector was justified in issuing the notice of demand under the Public Demand Recovery Act
The High Court has upheld the plea made by the respondent with the result that the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed with costs
The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court and it is with the said certificate that it has come to this Court by its present appeal
The customs tariff had been prescribed in the State of Sirohi by the Sirohi Customs Act of 1944 Section 14 of the said Act lays down that   except as hereinafter  provided customs duties shall be levied at such rates as are prescribed in the Sirohi Customs Tariff on all goods mentioned therein at the time of import or export of goods including those belonging to the State into or out of Sirohi State by rail road or air
It would thus be seen that section 14 which is the charging section provides that customs duties shall be levied on the goods mentioned in the Tariff at the rates prescribed by it
The result is that it is only in respect of goods mentioned in the Tariff and at the rates
specified therein that customs duties could be leived
Section 15 of the said Act conferred upon the Darbar power to fix and alter tariff rates
It says that the Darbar may from time to time by 259 notification in the Sirohi State Gazette save in emergency cases alter the rates prescribed in the Tariff and such altered rates shall come into force from the date mentioned in the notification or in the event of the notification not reaching any customs post concerned on a subsequent date from such date
 The effect of this section is that the power to fix and alter tariff rates has been conferred on the Darbar which is required ordinarily to issue a notification in that behalf
The High Court thought that as a result of reading sections 14 and 15 together it was open to the Darbar not only to alter rates at which customs could be levied but also to include new items under the taxable articles mentioned in the Tariff
This view is clearly erroneous
The power conferred on the Darbar by s 15 is to fix and alter tariff rates
No power has been conferred on the Darbar to add to the list of taxable commodities in the Tariff itself The goods on which customs duties could be levied have been specified in the Tariff attached to the Act and no addition could be made to the said Tariff in that behalf by the Darbar by virtue of the authority conferred on it by section 15
There is no doubt about this position
At this stage it is relevant to add that in the Tariff prescribed by the Act of 1944 charcoal is included in the list of commodities the import of which is liable to pay the customs duty
It is however not included in the list of commodities the export of which is liable to pay customs duty
This position is not disputed
Therefore in order that export of charcoal should be made liable to pay the customs duty the respondent ought to be able to rely upon some legislative enactment in that behalf
It appears that in 1940 the Ruler of the Sirohi State brought into existence the Council of 260 State and its functions and duties and its rights were duly notified in the State Gazette
The Council which was designated as the Council of State Sirohi was to consist of His Highness as President the Chief Minister as Vice President and such other member as His Highness may appoint from time to time
The general working of the Council had to be under the control of the President who under rule 9 was empowered if the matter was urgent to act on behalf of the Council provided that the Council was duly informed about the action taken by the President as soon as possible
Rule I I of the notification provided that all cases of the kind enumerated in Schedule I shall be referred to the Council for decision before final orders are passed save as provided in rule 9
Now amongst the matters specified in Schedule I is included the topic of any new taxation or alteration or abolition of taxation
This is entry 7 in the said Schedule
It would thus appear that it was within the competence of the Council to consider the proposal for any new taxation or alteration or abolition under rule 11 and it was for the Ruler to pass final orders in the light of the decision by the Council on that point
Rule 11 makes it clear that though it wag competent to the Council to reach a decision on topics covered by entry 7 in Schedule 1 it was for the Ruler to pass final orders which would make the decision effective
In other words there can belittle doubt that the power of the Council in respect of the matters covered by Schedule I were no more than advisory  it was always for the Ruler to decide what final orders should be passed in respect of the matters referred to the Council for its decision
That is the nature and scope of the power conferred on the Council
Since the Ruler of the State His Highness Maharajadhiraja Maharao Taj Singhji Bahadur was 261 a minor in 1947 His Excellency the Crown Representative was pleased to sanction the passing of the Regency Act for the Sirohi Minority Administration on the 14th August 1947
This Act provided that it was to come into force on the 14th August 1947 and was to continue until the Ruler attained the age of 18 years
Section 3 of the Act prescribes that for the purpose of the Constitution of the Sirohi State the word Ruler wherever occurring in the Constitution shall be deemed to be the Board of Regency
Section 4 provided for the constitution of the Board of Regency
It was to consist of Her Highness the Dowager Maharani Saheba of Sirohi Maharana Shri Sir Bhawani Singhji Bahadur of Danta and Raj Saheban Shri Bhopalsinghji of Mandar
Section 6 of the Act provided that the Board of Regency shall be legal guardian of the Ruler
After this Act was passed the functions of the Ruler were discharged by the Board of Regency which for all constitutional and legal purposes represented the Ruler during his minority
In pursuance of the material provisions of this Act notification was issued on the same clay constituting the Board of Regency
Thus it would be clear that when the impugned order levying a duty on coal was passed on the 31st May 1948 the constitutional position was that the governance of the State was entrusted to the Board of Regency and under the Board of Regency was functioning the State Council which had been constituted by the previous Ruler in 1940
It is in the light of this constitutional position that the question about the validity of the impugned levy of customs duty on the appellant has to be judged On the 31st May 1948 an order was passed which purports to have been issued in pursuance of the Council Resolution dated 15th May 1948 for which approval had been obtained from Her Highness Shri Raj Mata Saheba
As a result of this Order the duties imposed on goods specified 262 in the Tariff attached to the earlier Act were enhanced in respect of bones wool timber and fire wood and a fresh duty was imposed in respect of export of charcoal
This duty was imposed  As
8 per maund
As we have already soon it is common ground that according to the Tariff prescribed by the Act of 1944 charcoal was not included in the list of articles the export of which was liable to customs duty
The question which calls for decision in the present appeal is whether the order thus issued is valid and the answer to this question depends upon whether or not the imposition of the customs duty on charcoal has been levied by an authority which was legislatively competent to issue such an order
If the levy has been ordered only by the State Council without the approval of the Board of Regency then it would be invalid because it was not competent to the State Council to pass a law
It was open to the State Council to reach a decision on the question about the imposition of customs duty on any new article but that decision had to be approved and accepted by the Board of Regency which alone was clothed with the requisite legislative power
Therefore the validity of the order can be sustained only if it is shown that it has been passed with the approval of the Board of Regency of which Shri Raj Mata Saheba was the President
In dealing with this question it is necessary to bear in mind that the order does not formally recite that Shri Raj Mata Saheba had approved of the order as the President of the Board of Regency
The order has been issued by the Secretary of the State Council and does not purport to have been issued by the executive officer of the Board of Regency
The order does not refer to the Board of Regency at all and does not purport to say that Shri Rajmata Saheba when she gave her approval was acting on behalf of the Board
If the order had formally been passed as on behalf 263 of the Board of Regency it would have been open to the respondent to contend that the assumption should be that it was duly passed by the Board of Regency and has been promulgated according to the rules of business prescribed by the said Board
But since the order does not purport to have been issued either on behalf of the Board of Regency or on behalf of Shri Raj Mata Saheba acting for the Board of Regency it is necessary to enquire whether in fact the Board of Regency has approved of this order and it appears that so far as this enquiry is concerned the respondent has placed no material before the Court which would assist it in coming to the conclusion in favour of the validity of the impost
Indeed the plea taken by the respondent is disputing the correctness of the appellants claim before the High Court was that Shri Raj Mata Saheba was the President of the Board of Regency and that whenever she acted she did so on behalf of the Board and it was for her to take counsel from the other members
It was therefore urged that in the circumstances it would be presumed that she has passed the orders in consultation with other members till the contrary is proved
It is significant that this plea proceeds on the assumption that it was at the option of Shri Raj Mata Saheba either to consult the Board of Regency or not
The respondent s case appears to be that the Raj Mata being the President of the Board of Regency could act on her own in matters relating to the government of the State either executively or legislatively and that it was for her to decide whether she should consult the other members of the Board or not
The case set out by the respondent is not that the Raj Mata as the President of the Board always consulted the Board before she acted on its behalf
On the contrary the plea taken seems to suggest that the Raj Mata was not bound 264 to consult the Board and could have acted independently of the Board in passing orders either executive or legislative
That being the plea it is difficult for us to accept the argument that the approval of the Raj Mata to which the impugned order makes a reference can be safely taken to be the approval of the Raj Mata after she had consulted the Board in that behalf
There is no doubt that as a result of the Sirohi Regency Act the governance of the State was left in the hands of the Board of Regency and it was the Board of Regency alone acting collectively that could legislate or pass executive orders
If the Raj Mata took the view that she could act on her own without consulting the Board
that was clearly inconsistent with the material provisions of the Act
Therefore we are not inclined to accept the conclusion of the High Court that the impugned order can be said to have been passed as a result of the decision of the Board of Regency since the Board of Regency alone was clothed with the necessary legislative authority Unless the Board passed the resolution it could not take effect as a law in the State of Sirohi
The approval of the Raj Mata to the resolution passed by the State Council cannot cure infirmity arising from the fact that the State Council had no legislative power
The High Court seems to have taken the view that since the Raj Mata entered into the agreement of merger she can be treated at the de facto Ruler of the State and as such she was competent to exercise the necessary legislative power to pass the impugned order
we are not inclined to accept this view
It is clear that the document of merger has been signed by the Raj Mata describing herself as the President of the Regency Board but the High Court thought that since the document had not been signed by the Board itself the Raj Mata could be treated as the de facto Ruler of the State
265 This view is clearly erroneous
Since the Raj Mata was the President of the Board of Regency it was competent to her to sign the document on behalf  of the Board and she purported to sign it as the President of the Board of Regency obviously because she had consulted the Board and it was as a result of the decision of the Board that she proceeded to execute the document and sign it as the Board s President Therefore there is no substance in the contention that the Raj Mata alone without the concurrence of the Board could have validly given sanction to the passing of the impugned order
In the result we must hold that the impugned order has not been validly passed and no levy of customs duty can be legally imposed on the appellant in regard to the charcoal which it has exported out of the State of Sirohi
It is however urged that the duty levied against the appellant for the export of charcoal can be sustained under the provisions of Rajasthan Ordinance No16 of 1949
Section 42 of the said Ordinance authorised the Government to issue any revised tariff and in exercise of this power the Government of Rajasthan has issued a notification No 211SRD on the 10th August 1949 whereby a revised tariff was imposed and it was directed that the duties of customs shall be levied and collected in accordance with the said revised Tariff
According to item No367 in the said Tariff export duty on charcoal was As 8 per maund
The respondent s argument was that when Sirohi became a part of Rajasthan the Ordinance in question applied to Sirohi and so the claim for the customs duty made against the appellant was justified under the relevant provisions of the said Ordinance
This Ordinance came into force on the 4th August 1949
In our opinion this argument is not well founded
When Ordinance XVI was passed and 266 same into force it no doubt applied to the whole of Rajasthan as it was then constituted but the State of Sirohi was at the relevant time not a part of Rajasthan and it became a part of Rajasthan as from the 25th January 1950
It appears that the Ministry of States issued a notification on the 24th January 1950 in exercise of the powers conferred on the Government of India by subsection 2 of section 3 of the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act 1947 47 of 1947 and it was as a result of this notification that the Central Government delegated to the Government of the United States of Rajasthan the extra provincial jurisdiction including the power conferred by section 4 of the said Act to make orders for the effective exercise of that jurisdiction
It is thus clear that until the 25th January 1950 Sirohi was not a part of Rajasthan and was not amenable to the application of the Ordinance in question
The respondent attempted to suggest that as soon as Sirohi became a part of Rajasthan the Ordinance in question applied to it
This argument is obviously falla cious
When Sirohi became a part of Rajasthan the laws applicable to Rajasthan prior to the merger of Sirohi could be made applicable to Sirohi only after an appropriate legislation had been passed in that behalf
In fact in 1953 the Rajasthan Laws Application to Sirohi Act NoIII of 1953 was passed to declare that certain Rajasthan laws applied to Sirohi
Section 3 of this Act provided that the Rajasthan laws specified in the Schedule to the Act shall in so far as they relate to any of the matters enumerated in Lists II and III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India apply and as from the appointed day be deemed to have applied to Sirohi not withstanding any thing to the contrary contained in the Sirohi Administration Order 1948 or in any other law or instrument
There is a proviso to this 267 section with which we are not concerned for the purposes of the present appeal
The Ordinace in question is not included in the Schedule and so it is clear that the said Ordinance was not intended to apply to Sirohi
It is not suggested that any other law passed by the Rajasthan State or any other instrument executed in that behalf made the Ordinance in question applicable to Sirohi
Therefore we are satisfied that the respondent cannot rely upon the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Ordinance 1949 to support the demand for customs duty against the State of Sirohi
In the result the appeal must be allowed and the writ issued in favour of the appellant declaring that the appellant is not liable to pay the customs duty in question and quashing the orders passed by the Dy
Commissioner Customs  Excise as well as the Minister of Excise  Taxation and the demand notice issued by the Collector at the instance of the excise authorities
The appellant would entitled to its cost throughout
Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant firm was made liable to pay Rs 24395as customs duty for exporting charcoal from the State Sirohi and as it did not deposit the amount the collector of Sirohi on the requisition of the customs authorities issued a notice for recovery of the said amount under the Public Demands Recovery Act
The appellant moved the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution
Its case was that the order of the Sirohi State Council levying customs duty on the export of charcoal at the rate of 1 81 per maund wag invalid and ultra vires
The case of the respondent was that the said duty had been validly levied by virtue of the resolution passed by the State Council and approved by the Rajmata
The High Court held in favour of the respondent and dismissed the petition
The question was whether the impugned order dated May 31 1948 purported to have been passed in pursuance of the Council Resolution dated May 15 1948 imposing for the first time customs duty on export of charcoal had been validly issued
Held that the State Council did not have legislative power  after the passsing of the Regency Act for the Sirohi Minority Administration 1947 it could pass a law only with the approval of the Board of Regency of which the Rajmata Saheba was the President  since there was nothing to show that the Board had approved of
the order it must be held to be invalid
It was not correct to say that the Raj Mata could act independently of the Board it was the Board alone that could collectively legislate or pass executive orders
The view of the High Court that the Raj Mata could be treated as the de facto Ruler as the State was clearly erroneous
256 Nor could the levy on the appellant be sustained under the relevant provisions of Rajasthan Ordinance No 16 of 1949 which had no application