Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
AreTrade,CommerceandIntercourseFree?
LegalServicesIndiaAreTrade,CommerceandIntercourseFree?
AreTrade,CommerceandIntercourseFree?
Writtenby:RaghvendraSinghRaghuvanshiIIIYr,NLIU,Bhopal
Chatwithus(2PM9PMIST)
EnvironmentalLaw|Insurance/AccidentClaim|Familylaw|IntellectualProperty|InternationalLaw|JuvenileLaws|LegalProfession|Realestatelaws
SearchOn:
legalservices
CopyrightOnlineinIndia
Search
RightfromyourDesktopPhno:9891244487
Home\CompanyLaw
LatestArticles|BankingandFinancelawsCaseLaws|CivilLaws|CompanyLaw|ConstitutionalLaw|Consumerlaws|Contractslaws|Criminallaw|
Thisarticle/paperaddressestheintricaciesinvolvedinthequestionthatwhetherthefreedomoftrade,commerceandintercourse(Article301,Constitutionof
India)isanabsolutefreedomordoesithavinganyrestrictionsonit?Foranabsolutefreedomoftrade,commerceandintercoursemayleadtoeconomic
confusionandmisuseofthesame.ThereforethewideamplitudeofthefreedomgrantedbyArticle301islimitedbyrestrictionsimposedonitunderArticles
302305.
TheconstitutionmakersdesiredtopromotefreeflowoftradeandcommerceinIndiaastheyfullyrealizedthateconomicunityandintegrationofthecountry
providedthemainsustainingforceforthestabilityandprogressofthepoliticalandculturalunityofthefederalpolity,andthatthecountryshouldfunctionas
onesingleeconomicunitwithoutbarriersoninternaltrade.Inordertoensurethatthestatelegislaturessubjectedtolocalandregionalpullsdonotcreatetrade
barriersinfuture,Article301wasincorporatedintheconstitution.Accordingtothisprovision,"trade,commerceandintercoursethroughouttheterritoryofIndia
shallbefree".
TheconstitutionmakerswerefullyconsciousoftheneedformaintainingeconomicunityandprogressoffederalpolitywhiledraftingtherelevantArticlesof
partXIII.Article301isnotadeclarationofamereplatitudeortheexpressionofapioushopeofadeclaratorycharacter.Itembodiesandenshrinesaprinciple
ofparamountimportancethateconomicunitywillprovidethemainsustainingforceforstabilityandtheprogressofthepoliticalandculturalunityofthe
country.
Legislativehistory
Article301andSection297oftheGovt.ofIndiaAct,1935
ThecontentoffreedomprovidedforbyArticle301islargerthanthefreedomcontemplatedbysection297oftheGovernmentofIndiaAct,1935.thesupreme
courtpointedoutthattheobservationsofthescopeofSection297andArticle301didnotfallforconsiderationinanearlierandtheobservationsthereincould
notbetreatedtorestrictthescopeofArticle301.
ContentofArticle301
ThescopeandcontentofArticle301dependsontheinterpretationsofthreeexpressionsusedtherein,viz.,'trade,commerceandintercourse','free'and
'throughouttheterritoryofIndia'.
Trade,commerceandintercourse
TheframersoftheIndianconstitution,insteadofleavingtheideaof'intercourse'tobeimpliedbytheprocessofjudicialpronouncements,expressly
incorporatedthesameinArticle301.Thewordstradeandcommercehavebeenbroadlyinterpreted.Inmostofthecases,theaccenthasbeenonthe
movementaspect.Forexample,intheAtiabariTeaCo.v.StateofAssamcase,thecourtemphasized:"whateverelseit(Art.301)mayormaynotinclude,it
certainlyincludesmovementoftradewhichisoftheveryessenceofalltradeandisitsintegralpart,"and,further,that"primarilyitisthemovementpartofthe
trade"whichArticle301hasinitsmind,that"themovementorthetransportofthetrademustbefree,"andthat"itisthefreemovementorthetransportof
goodsfromonepartofthecountrytotheotherthatisintendedtobesaved."
Again,inStateofMadrasv.NatarajaMudaliar,thecourtstatedthat"allrestrictionswhichdirectlyandimmediatelyaffectthemovementoftradearedeclared
byArticle301tobeineffective."Neverthelesscasesarenotwantingwheremovementhasnotbeeninvolvedbutotheraspectsoftradeandcommercehave
beeninvolved.Theviewnowappearstobefairlysettledthatthesweepoftheconcept'trade,commerceandintercourse'isverywideandthatthewordtrade
alone,eveninitsnarrowsense,wouldincludeallactivitiesinrelationtobuyingandselling,ortheinterchangeorexchangeofcommoditiesandthatmovement
fromplacetoplaceistheverysoulofsuchtradingactivities.
InKoteswarv.K.R.B.&Co,arestrictiononforwardcontractswasheldtobeviolativeofArticle301.Thesupremecourtheldthatapowerconferredonthe
stategovernmenttomakeanorderprovidingforregulatingorprohibitinganyclassofcommercialorfinancialtransactionsrelatingtoanyessentialArticle,
clearlypermitsrestrictionsonfreedomoftradeandcommerceand,therefore,itsvalidityhastobeassessedwithreferencetoArticle304(b).
InDistrictCollector,Hyderabadv.Ibrahim,theSupremeCourthasinvalidatedunderArticle301anattemptbyastatetocreatebyanadministrativeordera
monopolytodealinsugarinfavourofcooperativesocieties.TheorderwasissuedwhiletheproclamationofemergencywasoperativeandsoArticle19(1)(g)
couldnotbeinvoked.ThecourtthereforetookrecoursetoArticle301.
InFatehchandHimmatlalv.StateofMaharashtra,theSupremeCourtconsideredthequestionthatwhethertheMaharashtradebtreliefact,1976,was
constitutionallyvalidvisvisArticle301.Thisdependedonthefurtherquestionthatwhethermoneylendingtopoorvillagerswhichwassoughttobeprohibited
bytheActcouldberegardedastrade,commerceandintercourse.Thecourtansweredinthenegativealthoughitrecognisedthatthemoneylendingamongst
thecommercialcommunityisintegraltotradeandthereforeistrade.
Certainactivitiesmaynotberegardedastrade,commerceandintercoursealthoughtheusualformsandinstrumentsareemployedtherein,asforexample,
gambling,andthusanActrestrictingbettingandgamblingisnotbadunderArticle301.Inthiscase,thesupremecourthadexpressedsomesentimentsof
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/tradeci.htm
1/6
4/19/2016
AreTrade,CommerceandIntercourseFree?
suggestingthatunlawfulactivitiesopposedtopublicmoralityandsafetywouldnotberegardedastradeandcommerce.Butthecourtthenresiledfromthis
broadpropositionsayingthatthewidepropositionthatadealingagainstmoralswouldnotbebusiness,involvesthepositionthatthemeaningoftheexpression
'tradeorbusiness'woulddependupon,andvarywith,thegeneralstandardsofmoralityacceptedataparticularpointoftimeinthecountry.
Afteranelaboratestudyofthescopeofthemeaningofthesewords,itcanbesaidthattheword"trade"cannotbeconfinedtothemovementofgoodsbut
extendstotransactionslinkedwithmerchandiseorflowofgoods,thepromotionofbuyingandselling,advances,borrowings,discountingbillsandmercantile
documents,bankingandotherforumsofsupplyoffunds.Moneylendingandtradefinancingalsoconstitutestrade.
Free
Theword'free'inArticle301cannotmeananabsolutefreedomorthateachandeveryrestrictionontradeandcommerceisinvalid.TheSupremeCourthas
heldinAtiabarithatfreedomoftradeandcommerceguaranteedbyArticle301isfreedomfromsuchrestrictionsasdirectlyandimmediatelyrestrictorimpede
thefreeflowormovementoftrade.ThereforeArticle301wouldnotbeattractedifalawcreatesanindirectorinconsequentialimpedimentontrade,commerce
andintercoursewhichmayberegardedasremote.Theword'free'inArticle301doesnotmeanfreedomfromregulation.Ashasbeenobservedbythesupreme
court:"thereisacleardistinctionbetweenlawsinterferingwithfreedomtocarryouttheactivitiesconstitutingtradeandlawsimposingonthoseengaged
thereinrulesofproperconductorotherrestraintsdirectedtothedueandorderlymannerofcarryingouttheactivities."Regulationofhours,equipment,weight,
sizeofload,lights,trafficlawsaresomeexamplesofregulatorylawswhicharenothitbyArticle301.
Regulationslikerulesoftrafficfacilitatefreedomoftradeandcommercewhereasrestrictionsimpedethatfreedom.InStateofMysorev.Sanjeeviah,Arule
banningmovementofforestproducewithinthestatebetween10p.mandsunrisewasheldtobevoidunderArt.301asitwasnot'regulatory'but'restrictive.
TaxlawsarenotexcludedfromthescopeofArt.301.AtaxwhichdirectlyandimmediatelyrestrictstradewouldfallwithinthepurviewofArt.301.Fromthe
trendofthecaselawitappearsthatthereisagreaterreadinessonthepartofthecourtstocharacterizeanimpedimentonmovementofcommerceas'direct'
andsoholditbadunderArt.301,thantheonenotonmovementwhichisusuallyheldtobeindirectorremoteandsovalid,e.g.,octroi,salestax,purchase
tax,etc.ButsalestaxdiscriminatingbetweengoodsofonestatefromthoseofanothermayaffectfreeflowoftradeandsooffendArt.301.Ataxleviedby
ParliamentoninterstatesalewouldhaveoffendedArt.301assuchatax,initsessence,encumbersmovementoftradeorcommercebecausebyitsvery
definitionaninterstatesaleisonewhichoccasionsmovementofgoodsfromonestatetoanother.Nevertheless,itwasheldvalidbecauseofArt.302.
ThroughouttheterritoryofIndia
TheviewisdefinitelyheldnowthatArticle301appliesnotonlytointerstatebutalsotointrastatetradeandcommerce,i.e.tradewithinthestate.Therefore,it
meansfreedomoftradecommerceandintercourseistherewithinthestateand/oroutsidethestateand/oranypartwithintheterritoryofIndia.
RegulatoryandCompensatoryTax
Tosmoothenthemovementofinterstatetradeandcommerce,thestatehastoprovidemanyfacilitiesbywayofroadsetc..Theconceptofregulatoryand
compensatorytaxationhasbeenevolvedwithaviewtoreconcilethefreedomoftradeandcommerceguaranteedbyArt.301withtheneedtotaxsuchtradeat
leasttotheextentofmakingitpayforthefacilitiesprovidedtoitbythestate,e.g.,aroadnetwork.Ifachargeisimposednotforthepurposeofobtaininga
propercontributiontothemaintenanceandupkeepoftheroad,butforthepurposeofadverselyaffectingtradeorcommerce,thenitwouldamountto,a
restrictiononthefreedomoftrade,commerceandintercourse.
TheconceptofregulatoryandcompensatorytaxationhasbeenappliedbytheIndiancourtstothestatetaxationunderentries56and57ofListII.
AtiabariTeaCo.v.StateofAssam,
Facts:AtaxleviedbytheStateofAssamonthecarriageofteabyroadorinlandwaterwayswasheldbadfor"thetransportormovementofgoodsistaxed
solelyonthebasisthatthegoodsarethuscarriedortransported,andthus"directlyaffectsthefreedomoftradeascontemplatedbyArt.301."
TheSupremeCourttooktheviewthatthefreedomguaranteedbyArt.301wouldbecomeillusoryifthemovement,transport,orthecarryingofgoodswere
allowedtobeimpeded,obstructedorhamperedbythetaxationwithoutsatisfyingtherequirementsofArt.302to304.Thecourtdidnottakeintoconsideration
thequantum.oftaxburdenwhichbynomeanswasexcessive.Simplybecausethetaxwasleviedon'movement'ofgoods,fromoneplacetoanother,itwas
heldtooffendArt.301.
TheviewpropoundedinAtiabariwasboundtohavegreatadverseeffectuponthefinancialautonomyofthestates.Itwouldhaverenderedtheirtaxingpower
underentries56and57,ListII.
Accordingly,themattercametobereconsideredbytheSupremeCourtinAutomobileTransportv.Rajasthan.
Facts:TheStateofRajasthanhadleviedataxonmotorvehicles(Rs.60onamotorcarandRs.2000onagoodsvehicleperyear)usedwithinthestateinany
publicplaceorkeptforuseinthestate.Thevalidityofthetaxwaschallenged.
TakingtheviewthatfreedomoftradeandcommerceunderArt.301shouldnotundulycripplestateautonomy,andthatitshouldbeconsistentwithanorderly
society,theSupremeCourtnowruledthatregulatorymeasuresandcompensatorytaxesfortheuseoftradingfacilitieswerenothitbyArt.301asthesedid
nothamper,.butratherfacilitated,trade,commerceandintercourse.
Issue:Aworkingtesttodecidewhetherataxiscompensatoryornotwouldbetoenquirewhetherthetradespeoplearehavingtheuseofcertainfacilitiesfor
thebetterconductoftheirbusinessandpayingnotpatentlymuchmorethanwhatisrequiredforprovidingthefacilities?Ataxdoesnotceasetobe
compensatorybecausethepreciseorspecificamountcollectedisnotactuallyusedinprovidingfacilities.
TheconceptofcompensatorytaxevolvedinthiscasewassomethingnewasinAtiabari,thecourthaddismissedtheargumentthatthemoneyrealized
throughthetaxwouldbeusedtoimproveroadsandwaterwaysrathercurtlybysayingthattherewereotherways,apartfromthetaxinquestion,torealizethe
money,andthatifthesaidobjectwasintendedtobeachievedbylevyingataxonthecarriageofgoods,thesamecouldbedoneonlybysatisfyingArt.
304(b).
Decision:ThecourtruledthatthetaxwasnothitbyArt.301,asitwasacompensatorytaxhavingbeenleviedforuseoftheroadsprovidedforandmaintained
bythestate.
Thus,tothisextent,themajorityviewinAtiabariwasnowoverruledbyAutomobile.
SincethentheconceptofregulatoryandcompensatorytaxeshasbecomeestablishedinIndiawithreferencetoentries56and57,ListII,andtheconcepthas
beenappliedinseveralcases,andprogressivelythecourtshaveliberalisedtheconceptsoastopermitstatetaxationatahigherlevel.
BolaniIronOresv.StateofOrissa
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/tradeci.htm
2/6
4/19/2016
AreTrade,CommerceandIntercourseFree?
Acompensatorytaxisleviedtoraiserevenuetomeettheexpenditureformakingroads,maintainingthemandforfacilitatingthemovementandregulationof
traffic.TheSupremeCourtheldthattaxationunderentry57,ListII,cannotexceedthecompensatorynaturewhichmusthavesomenexuswiththevehicles
usingtheroads.Theregulatoryandcompensatorynatureofthetaxisthattaxingpowershouldbeusedtoimposetaxesonmotorvehicleswhichusetheroads
inthestateorarekeptforusethereon.
G.K.Krishnanv.StateofTamilNadu
Facts:TheStateofTamilNaduincreasedthemotorvehiclestaxfromRs.30to100perseatperquarterandthiswaschallengedasbeingviolativeofArt.301.
Issue:whetheranondiscriminatorytaxleviedbyastateshouldberegardedasarestrictionontradeandcommercebecauseofthefeelingthatthiswould
curtailstateautonomytolevytaxesfallinginthestatelegislativesphere?
ButtheSupremeCourtupheldthetax.Thecourtstated,"Acompensatorytaxisnotarestrictionuponthemovementpartoftradeandcommerce."Thetax
shouldnotgobeyond"aproperrecompensetotheStatefortheactualusemadeofthephysicalfacilitiesprovidedintheshapeofaroad."Intheinstantcase,
thetaxcollectionsamountedtooverRs.16croreswhiletheexpenditurefortheyearamountedtoRs.19.51croresandthisamountdidnotincludethegrants
tolocalgovernmentsfortherepairandmaintenanceofroadswithintheirjurisdiction.Thetaxwasthusheldtobecompensatoryandhencevalid.
TheSupremeCourtfurtherliberalisedthestatetaxingpowerbyupholdingastatetaxonpassengersandgoodscarriedonnationalhighways.
Internationaltouristcorporationv.StateofHaryana
Facts:ThestateofHaryanaleviedataxontransportersplyingmotorvehiclesbetweenDelhiandJammu&Kashmir.Theyusenationalhighway,passthrough
Haryanawithoutpickinguporsettingdownanypassengerinthestate.Theresponsibilityforconstructingandmaintainingofnationalhighwaysrestsonthe
Centre.Itwasthereforearguedbythetransportersthatthetaxcouldhardlyberegardedascompensatory,butthecourtrejectedthecontention.
TheSupremeCourtsaidthatwhatisnecessarytoupholdsuchataxistheexistenceofaspecific,'identifiable'objectbehindthelevyanda'sufficientnexus'
betweenthe'subjectandtheobjectofthelevy.'Thecourtfurthersaidthatastateincursconsiderableexpenditureformaintenanceofroadsandproviding
facilitiesfortransportofgoodsandpassengers.Eveninconnectionwithnationalhighways,astateincursconsiderableexpenditurenotdirectlybyconstructing
ormaintainingthembutbyfacilitatingthetransportofgoodsandpassengersalongwiththeminvariouswayssuchaslighting,trafficcontrol,amenitiesfor
passengers,haltingplacesforbusesandtrucks.Thatpartofanationalhighwaywhichlieswithinmunicipallimitsistobedevelopedandmaintainedbythe
state.Thereisthussufficientnexusbetweenthetaxandthepassengersandgoodscarriedonthenationalhighwaystojustifytheimpositionofthesaidtax.
Decision:thetaxwasheldtobevalid.
MalwaBusServicev.StateofPunjab
Facts:Inthiscase,intheyear1981,theStateofPunjabsubstantiallyincreasedtherateoftaxoneverystagecarriageplyingforhireandtransportof
passengers.TheratesadoptedwereRs.500perseatperyearsubjecttoamaximumofRs.35,000perbusirrespectiveofthedistanceoverwhichitoperated
daily.Accordingtothebudgetfiguresfor198182,therevenuereceiptsofthegovernmentfrommotorvehiclestaxwasRs.50croresasagainstthe
expenditureofRs.34crores.Thetaxwaschallengedonthegroundthatitwasnotcompensatoryasthegovernmentwasusingitforaugmentingitsgeneral
revenues,butthecourtupheldthetaxascompensatory.
Intheinstantcase,thebudgetexpenditureontheroadsandbridgesdidnotincludetheexpenditureincurredbythestateonotherheadsconnectedwithroad
transport,suchas,thedirectorateoftransport,transportauthorities,provisionforbusstands,lighting,trafficpolice,grantstolocalauthorities.Takingallthis
expenditureintoaccount,itbecameclearthatasubstantialpartofthelevyonmotorvehicleswasbeingspentannuallyonprovidingfacilitiestomotorvehicles
operators.Thecourtalsopointedoutthatinlateryears,thegovernmentexpenditureonroadsandbridgeshadsubstantiallyincreased.Italsosaidthatthe
figuresofincomeandexpenditureforonlyoneyearmightpresentadistortedpicture.Inthiscase,cumulativefiguresofreceiptsandexpenditurefornineyears
(19731982)presentedadifferentpicture.Describingtheprincipleunderlyingsuchatax,thecourtsaid:"whatisessentialisthattheburdenshouldnot
disproportionatelyexceedthecostofthefacilitiesprovidedbythestate."
Decision:ThereforethetaximposedbythestateofPunjabwasheldtobevalid.
Directandimmediaterestrictions
TherestrictionswhichwillattractArticle301mustbethosewhichdirectlyandimmediatelyrestrictorimpedethefreeflowormovementoftrade.Onlythose
taxeswhichdirectlyandimmediatelyrestricttradewouldfallwithinthepurviewofArticle301.therationalandworkabletesttoapplywouldbe:doesthe
impugnedrestrictionsoperatedirectlyorimmediatelyontradeoritsmovement?whatisprohibitedisataxwhosedirecteffectistohinderthemovementof
trade.
Restrictiononfreedomoftrade,commerceandintercoursethroughouttheterritoryofIndiacannotbejustifiedunlesstheyfallwithinArticle304.
InterrelationbetweenArticles301and19(1)(g)
Article19(1)(g),afundamentalright,confersonthecitizenstherighttopracticeanyprofessionorcarryonanyoccupation,tradeorbusiness.Thequestionof
interrelationshipbetweenArticles19(1)(g)and301issomewhatuncertain.
OneviewisthatwhileArticle19(1)(g)dealswiththerightoftheindividuals,Article301providessafeguardsforthecarryingontradeasawholedistinguished
fromanindividualsrighttodothesame.Thisviewishardlytenable.Article301isbasedonsection92oftheAustralianconstitutionwhichhasbeenheldto
compromiserightsoftheindividualaswell,andthesameshouldbethepositioninIndia.Inactualpractice,theviewhasneverbeenenforcedandindividuals
havechallengedlegislationonthegroundofitseffectontheirrighttocarryontradeandcommerce.ThesupremecourthasdenouncedthetheorythatArticle
301guaranteesfreedom"inabstractandnotoftheindividuals."
AdifferencebetweenArts.19(1)(g)and301,ithasbeensaid,isthatArt.301couldbeinvokedonlywhenanindividual,ispreventedfromsendinghisgoods
acrossthestate,orfromonepointtoanotherinthesamestate,whileArt.19(1)(g)canbeinvokedwhenthecomplaintiswithregardtotherightofanindividual
tocarryonbusinessunrelatedto,orirrespectiveof,themovementofgoods,i.e.,whileArt.301contemplatestherightoftradeinmotion,Art.19(1)(g)secures
therightatrest.
Art.301coversmanyinterferenceswithtradeandcommercewhichmaynotordinarilycomewithinArt.19(1)(g),
Freedomoftradeandcommerceisawiderconceptthanthatofanindividual'sfreedomtotradeguaranteedbyArt.19(1)(g).
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/tradeci.htm
3/6
4/19/2016
AreTrade,CommerceandIntercourseFree?
Art.19(1)(g)canbetakenadvantageofbyacitizen,whileArt.301canbeinvokedbyacitizenaswellasanoncitizen.Also,whileArt.19(1)(g)isnotavailable
toacorporateperson,Art.301maybeinvokedbyacorporationandevenbyastateoncomplaintsofdiscriminationorpreferencewhichareoutlawedbyArt.
303,discussedbelow.
Inemergency,Art.19(1)(g)issuspendedandsocourtsmaytakerecoursetoArt.301toadjudgethevalidityofarestrictiononcommerce.
Incertainsituations,onlyoneofthetwomayberelevant,asforexamplewhenthereisnodirectburdenonatradebutitmaybearestrictionintermsofArt.
19(1)(g)readwithArt.19(6).Insomeothersituations,bothprovisionsmaybecomeapplicableanditmaybepossibletoinvokethemboth.
Art.301isamandatoryprovisionandalawcontraveningthesameisultravires,butitisnotafundamentalrightandhenceisnotenforceableunderArticle32.
ButiftherightunderArticle19(1)(g)isalsoinfringed,thenArticle32petitionmaylie.
Isthisfreedomanabsoluteone?
Aquestionarisesherethatwhetherthefreedomoftrade,commerceandintercourseisanabsolutefreedomordoesithavinganyrestrictionsonit?Foran
absolutefreedomoftrade,commerceandintercoursemayleadtoeconomicconfusionandmisuseofthesame.Thereforethewideamplitudeofthefreedom
grantedbyArticle301islimitedbyArticles302305.theexceptionstoArticle301are:
a.ParliamentisgivenpowertoregulatetradeandcommerceinpublicinterestunderArticle302subjecttoArticle303.
Article302empowersparliamenttoimposerestrictionsonthefreedomoftrade,commerceandintercoursebetweenonestateandanother,orwithinanypartof
theterritoryofIndia,inthepublicinterest.ThereferenceofArticle302torestrictiononthefreedomoftradewithinanypartoftheterritoryofIndiaasdistinct
fromfreedomoftradebetweenonestateandanotherclearlyindicatesthatthefreedomgrantedbyArticle301coversbothinterstateandintrastatetradeand
commerce,asArticle302isintheverynatureofanexceptiontoArticle301.
TheEssentialCommoditiesActhasbeenheldtoimposereasonablerestrictionsontherighttocarryontradeandcommerceasguaranteedbyArticles19(1)(g)
and301.
InPragIce&OilMillsv.India,thesupremecourtsaidthatArticle302doesnotspeakof'reasonablerestrictions'yetthecourtfurtherheldthat'itisevident
thatrestrictionscontemplatedbyitmustbearareasonablenexuswiththeneedtoservethepublicinterest.'
b.ThestatelegislaturesaregivenpowertoregulatetradeandcommerceunderArticle304subjecttoArticle303.
Article304,whichconsistsoftwoclauses,empowersthestatestomakelawstoregulateandrestrictthefreedomoftradeandcommercetosomeextent.
Accordingto304(a),astatelegislaturemaybylawimposeongoodsimportedfromotherstatesanytaxtowhichsimilargoodsmanufacturedorproduced
withinthatstatearesubject,so,however,asnottodiscriminatebetweengoodssoimportedandgoodssomanufacturedorproduced.
*Article304(a)thussaysthatstatelegislaturemayimposetaxesbutoneconditionisthere,itshallnotbediscriminatory.
InKalyaniStoresv.StateofOrrisa,ThestateofOrrisaleviedadutyonforeignliquor.Nosuchliquorwasproducedwithinthestateandthewholeofitwas
importedfromotherstates.Thesupremecourtruledthatifthegoodsofaparticulardescriptionwerenotproducedwithinastate,thepowertolegislateunder
Article304(a)wouldnotavailabletoit.Intheinstantcaseasnoliquorwasproducedwithinthestate,thestatecouldnotuseitslegislativepowerunderArticle
304(a).
BasicallytheconceptofequalityinArticle304(a)and14are,somehow,same.InVideoElectronicsPvtLtd.v.StateofPunjab,thesupremecourtheldthat
Article304(a)enjoinsthestatenottodiscriminatewithrespecttoimpositionoftaxonimportedgoodsandlocallymadegoods.
InShriMahavirOilMillsLtd.v.StateofJ&K,thesupremecourtfurthersaidthatthisclausebarsstatesfromcreatingtaxbarriers/fiscalbarriersand/or
insulatingthemselvesbycreatingtariffwalls.
*Article304(b)authorizesastatelegislaturetoimposebylawsuchreasonablerestrictionsonthefreedomoftrade,commerceandintercoursewithorwithin
thatstateasmayberequiredinpublicinterest,providedthatthebilloramendmentforthispurposehasreceivedtheprevioussanctionofthepresidentbefore
itisintroducedormovedinthestatelegislature.
ThereisalsoaprovisioninthisArticleandthatis"providednobilloramendmentforthepurposesofclause(b)shallbeintroducedormovedinthelegislature
ofastatewithouttheprevioussanctionofthepresident."
InStateofKarnatakav.HansaCorporation,theSupremeCourtsaidthat:
ThoughArticle304(b)requiresthepriorassentofthepresidentbeforethebillisintroducedinthelegislatureyet,duetoArticle255,ifpriorassentisnot
secured,theinfirmitycanbecuredbysubsequentassentofthepresidentafterthebillhasbeenpassedbythestatelegislature.
InAtiabaricase,astatelawimposingataxonmovementofgoodsininterstatecommercewasheldinvalidbecauseofthelackofpresidentialassent.
InSaghirAhmedv.StateofU.P,itwasheldthatsubsequentsanctionisofnoeffect.
ButinothercasesitwasheldthatprovisohastobereadinaharmoniousmannerwithArticle255,whichsaysthatiftheActreceivestheassentofthe
president,thenoncomplianceoftheprevioussanctiontotheintroductionofthebilliscured.
c.Article305protectsexistinglawsfromtheoperationofArticles301and303.italsosavesnationalizationlawsfromtheoperationofArticle301.
Restrictionsandregulations
Thecontrastbetween"freedomunderArticle301and"restrictions"underArticle302and304clearlyappears:"thatwhichinrealityfacilitatestradeand
commerceisnotarestrictionandthatwhichinrealityhampersorburdenstradeandcommerceisarestriction."itistherealityorthesubstancethathastobe
lookedintoanddetermined.IfArticle301isinterpretedtocoverallregulation,itwillmeanthatthestatelegislaturecannotcontroltrade,commerceand
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/tradeci.htm
4/6
4/19/2016
AreTrade,CommerceandIntercourseFree?
intercourseevenifitistofacilitatefreemovement.ItmustyetproceedtomakealawunderArticle304(b)andnosuchbillcanbeintroducedormovedinthe
legislatureofastatewithouttheprevioussanctionofthepresident.
Necessityofreasonablerestrictions
Nowaquestionarisesastothenecessityofsuchreasonablerestrictions.Toanswerthis,theconstitutionalframerswereconsciousoffreetrade,commerce
andintercoursethroughouttheterritoryofIndiaisnecessary.Atthesametime,suchfreedommayrequiretobecurtailedorcurbedinpublicinterestandthe
parliamentandthestatelegislatureshavebeengivenpowersunderArticles302,303,304.
TheobjectofpartXIIIisnottomakeinterstatetrade,commerceandintercourseabsolutelyfree.Reasonablerestrictionsinpublicinterestarepermissible.
Regulatoryorcompensatorymeasurescannotberegardedasviolativeofthefreedomunlesstheyareshowntobecolorablemeasurestorestrictthefreeflow
oftrade,commerceandintercourse.ThereforeArticle304allowsimpositionofsuchreasonablerestrictionsonthefreedomoftradeasareinpublicinterest.
Conclusion
Toconcludethisresearchpaper,IwouldliketosaythatpartXIIIisthemostbadlydraftedpartoftheconstitutionofIndia.Theconstitutionframershadjust
borrowedthispartfromtheAustralianconstitution,(section92)perhaps,withouttakingintoconsiderationitsfurtherimplicationsandconsequencesina
countrylikeIndia.
Firstly,thefreedomenshrinedunderthepartXIII,issubjectexceptionuponexceptionandtherebylimitingthescopeofthesaidfreedom.
Secondly,theconstitutionframerscouldnothaveprovidedthewordslike"subjecttotheotherprovisionstothispart".Ifthispartisinterpretedliterallyorthe
literalruleofcommonlawisappliedthenitcanbesaidthatthispartistobereadonlywiththeotherprovisionsofthispartonlyandnottheotherprovisionsof
theconstitution.butpracticallyitisnotso,assupremecourt,inmanycases,asreferredinthispaper,hastakenthehelporreadalongwithotherprovisionsof
theconstitutionaswell.
Thirdly,thesebadlydraftedprovisionscanonlybecuredbytheamendmenttotheconstitution.Therefore,itneedsamendment.
Fourthly,itisnotaselfcontainedcode.MaybetheconstitutionhasspecificallyprovidedthatitwillsubjectonlytothepartXIII,butithastobereadina
harmoniousway.Therefore,itistobereadwiththeotherprovisionsoftheconstitution.
Theauthorcanbereachedat:raghav_nliu@legalserviceindia.com/PrintThisArticle
LawyersSearch
Findalawyer
FileMutualConsentDivorce
CopyrightRegistrationOnline
Knowyourlegaloptions
RightAway
RightfromyourDesktop...
Informationaboutyourlegalissues CallusatPhno:9650499965
51Comments
*CallusatPhno:9891244487
Sortby Oldest
Addacomment...
LegalServiceIndia
ForlatestonCompanylawsalsocheck:
#http://legalservicesindia.com/.../companylaw91.html
LikeReply
10Dec11,20129:31pm
ArunaChoudhuryWorksatIampracticinglawyer
Companylawsarticlesareworthgoingthroughhere.
LikeReply
4Dec14,201211:46am
RomaSenColumbiaUniversity
howtostartupafashiondesigncompanyinIndia
LikeReply
3Dec14,201211:49am
DashansSuryawanshiWorksatIIIM(CSIR)JAMMU
RomaSen
LikeReplyJan27,201610:50am
SaifQuraishiNoida,India
RomaSenhi,ucanwritetousatATTORNEYITL@GMAIL.COMforanycompanycorporationintheIndia.
LikeReply
1Jan29,201610:45pm
Show4morerepliesinthisthread
Load10morecomments
FacebookCommentsPlugin
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/tradeci.htm
5/6
4/19/2016
AreTrade,CommerceandIntercourseFree?
Legaloutsourcing|Medialaws|Medicolegal|TaxLaws|TortsLaw|WorkplaceEqualityandNonDiscrimination|HumanRightslaws|Copyrightlaw
LegalAdvice
YourNameYourEmail
GetlegaladvicefromHighlyqualifiedlawyerswithin48hrs.
GetmoreInfo
withcompletesolution.
lawyersinDelhi
lawyersinMumbai
lawyersinKolkata
LawyersinIndiaSearchbyCity
lawyersinChandigarh
lawyersinPune
lawyersinJanjgir
lawyersinChennai
lawyersinDhaka
lawyersinAllahabad
lawyersinNagpur
lawyersinRajkot
lawyersinBangalore
lawyersinDubai
lawyersinLucknow
lawyersinAhmedabad
lawyersinIndore
lawyersinHyderabad
lawyersinLondon
lawyersinJodhpur
lawyersinSurat
Gurgaonlawyers
lawyersinCochin
lawyersinNewYork
lawyersinJaipur
Faridabadlawyers
Ghaziabadlawyers
lawyersinAgra
lawyersinToronto
lawyersinNewDelhi
Noidalawyers
lawyersinGuwahati
lawyersinSiliguri
lawyersinSydney
lawyersinNashik
lawyersinDimapur
Protectyourwebsite
LawyersinAuckland
lawyersinLosAngeles
Contractlaws
TrademarkRegistrationinIndia
LawColleges
CauseLists
Wills
Protectyourwebsite
Womanissues
LegalProfession
ImmigrationLaw
Chequebouncelaws
Armylaw
FamousTrials
TransferofPetition
MedicoLegal
LokAdalat,legalAidandPIL
Home|Privacy|Termsofuse|Trademarks|Lawyers|SubmitArticle|Sitemap|ContactUs
legalServicesIndiaisCopyrightedundertheRegistrarofCopyrightAct(GovtofIndia)20002015
ISBNNo:9788192851013
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/tradeci.htm
6/6