2015 (10) TMI 1729 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court rules in favor of petitioner in dispute over empty beer bottles, citing constitutional rights violation.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a registered company under Tamil Nadu CST and Central Sale Tax Act, in a case concerning the interference with ... Prohibition on selling and transporting the empty beer bottles duly collected inside the State of Tamil Nadu by the petitioner and to sell and transport outside the State of Tamil Nadu - Violation of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 301 of the Constitution of India - Held that:- Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees, to all citizens the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation trade or business subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by this State under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. Thus, when the Constitution has guaranteed every citizen right to carry on any business whether rich or poor it is only the State which can impose reasonable restrictions within the ambit of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India, without which, on the basis of a circular, the respondent cannot interfere with the petitioner's right to carry on business. - Decision in the case of syndicate bottles [2015 (10) TMI 298 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] followed - Decided in favour of petitioner. Issues:Violation of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 301 of the Constitution of India by preventing sale and transport of empty beer bottles collected in Tamil Nadu.Analysis:The petitioner, a registered company under Tamil Nadu CST and Central Sale Tax Act, sought a writ of mandamus against the respondent to stop interfering with the sale and transport of empty beer bottles collected in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner argued that the sudden seizure of empty beer bottles and arrests of drivers by the respondent were unconstitutional and violated their rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 301 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that the respondent's actions were based on unfounded apprehensions and lacked any evidence of misuse of the bottles. The petitioner emphasized their right to carry on business freely, both within and outside the state, as guaranteed by the Constitution.In response, the respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the seizure was based on suspicions of collusion between Tamil Nadu bottle suppliers and breweries from other states to wrongfully gain and cause losses to Tamil Nadu. The respondent alleged that investigations revealed the misuse of Tamil Nadu beer bottles in Madhya Pradesh for refilling and circulation. The respondent justified their actions as preventive measures to curb such activities and protect the interests of Tamil Nadu.The petitioner refuted the allegations, arguing that the imprints on the beer bottles were only applicable to the contents and not the empty bottles themselves. They maintained that the respondent's interference was based on presumptions and lacked specific complaints against the petitioner regarding misuse of empty bottles. The petitioner reiterated their rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 301, emphasizing the freedom to conduct business without unwarranted restrictions.In a similar case, the court had previously ruled in favor of a petitioner facing a similar situation, emphasizing that the prevention of movement of empty beer bottles without legislative authority infringed upon the fundamental right to carry on business as guaranteed by the Constitution. The court highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of misuse and concluded that the actions of the respondent were unjustified. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, restraining the respondent from interfering with the sale and transport of empty beer bottles collected in Tamil Nadu.Following the precedent set by the previous ruling, the court allowed the current writ petition, reiterating that the respondents were prohibited from preventing the petitioner company from selling and transporting the empty beer bottles collected within Tamil Nadu. The court emphasized the importance of upholding constitutional rights to conduct business freely and without unjustified impediments.