Terminal tax challenge under Article 301 fails where constitutional validity is presumed and public interest protection under Article 302 applies.

Section 178 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, imposing terminal tax on goods brought into Delhi by rail or road, was analysed against Article 301 and the discrimination challenge. The text states that constitutional validity is presumed, and a challenger must plead and prove invalidity with clear particulars. On the pleadings presented, no sufficient material was shown to establish breach of Article 301 or discriminatory operation. The levy was also treated as a tax imposed in public interest and therefore protected by Article 302. The constitutional challenge accordingly failed, and the terminal tax was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 178 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, levying terminal tax on goods carried by railway or road into Delhi from outside, violated the freedom of trade under Article 301 of the Constitution of India and was discriminatory.

Analysis: The challenge was examined on the basis of the pleadings and the settled principles governing constitutional validity. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality, and a party assailing a taxing provision must make specific, clear and unambiguous pleadings with relevant particulars and discharge the burden of showing invalidity. The pleadings in the case were found insufficient to establish that the levy offended Article 301 or operated in a discriminatory manner. Even assuming that the levy directly and immediately affected movement of goods, a tax law is not outside Article 301 in every case, and the question turns on context. The impugned levy, enacted by Parliament, was also treated as one imposed in public interest, and no material was shown to displace that presumption. On that basis, the levy was held to fall within the protection of Article 302.

Conclusion: Section 178 was not invalid under Article 301 and was saved by Article 302; the constitutional challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The levy of terminal tax under section 178 was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxing statute is presumed constitutional, and a challenge to its validity must be supported by specific pleadings and proof; even a levy that may affect movement of goods is valid if it is imposed in public interest and is protected by Article 302.

---