Article 277 protects only existing pre-Constitution levies, not new commodities or higher terminal tax rates.

Article 277 preserves only taxes, duties, cesses or fees that were actually being levied immediately before the Constitution commenced, and it protects continuation only in the same form. It does not save a mere power to levy, nor does it authorise extending a municipal terminal tax to new commodities or increasing the rate beyond the pre-Constitution levy. Any such extension or enhancement is a fresh imposition and cannot be justified as a continued levy. The challenged notifications were therefore invalid to the extent they applied the tax to new items and raised the rate.

---

---

Issues: Whether article 277 of the Constitution saved the municipal levy of terminal tax on newly added commodities and increased rates where such levy was not actually imposed before the Constitution.

Analysis: Article 277 preserves only taxes, duties, cesses or fees that were being lawfully levied immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, so as to prevent disruption of existing local finances. The expression "continue to be levied" refers to an actually existing levy, not merely a power to levy a tax or the possibility of imposing it in future. The saving provision does not authorise the expansion of the range of taxable articles or the enhancement of rates; it only protects the continuance of the same levy in the same form. A tax on items not previously subjected to charge, or an increase in the rate beyond the pre-Constitution levy, is a fresh imposition and cannot be justified by article 277.

Conclusion: The impugned notifications were not protected by article 277 to the extent they imposed terminal tax on new items or increased the rate, and the challenge to the levy succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 277 saves only an actual pre-Constitution levy in the same form and does not authorise a fresh tax, extension to new commodities, or enhancement of the rate under the guise of continued levy.

---