Article 301 challenge to mineral tax fails where the levy only affects profitability and not the free movement of goods.

A notification changing mineral tax from last point to first point tax was upheld because it did not directly or immediately restrict the movement of goods or trade under Article 301. The court applied the settled test for taxing measures and held that a tax on sale of goods, by itself, does not impede free trade merely because it affects profitability. The absence of discriminatory taxation against imported goods and the inapplicability of the exceptional no-margin-of-profit reasoning meant the levy was not unconstitutional on the ground urged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notification changing mineral tax from last point to first point tax violated Article 301 of the Constitution and was therefore unconstitutional.

Analysis: The impugned levy was examined on the settled test whether a taxing provision operates directly or immediately on trade or the movement of goods. A tax on sale of goods normally does not by itself impede free movement of goods, and the effect on the petitioner's profitability was held insufficient to establish a direct and immediate restriction on trade. The case was not one of discriminatory taxation against imported goods, and the facts did not justify extending the exceptional reasoning applied where a statutory price structure leaves no real margin of profit.

Conclusion: The notification did not violate Article 301 and was not unconstitutional on the ground urged.

Ratio Decidendi: A sales tax measure offends Article 301 only when it directly and immediately restricts the movement of goods or trade; mere adverse impact on business profitability is not enough.

---