Article 32 challenge to border levy was not entertained where State law itself was not under attack

Petitions under Article 32 challenging levy and collection of Border Tax or Authorisation Fee were not maintainable where the State enactments and rules were not directly assailed and the demands arose under State law made with reference to Entries 56 and 57 of List II. In the absence of a challenge to the statutory source of power, the Supreme Court would not examine the levy under Article 32; the petitioners were required to seek relief before the jurisdictional High Courts and challenge the relevant State provisions there. The petitions were therefore not entertained on merits and were disposed of without interference with the State demands, with liberty to approach the High Courts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitions under Article 32 challenging the levy and collection of Border Tax / Authorisation Fee were entertainable when the State enactments and rules were not under challenge and the petitioners had an available remedy before the jurisdictional High Courts.

Analysis: The petitions concerned demands raised by States under their own enactments and rules framed with reference to Entries 56 and 57 of List II. The State provisions themselves were not assailed. In that setting, the challenge to the border levy could not be examined under Article 32 in the absence of a direct attack on the statutory source of power. The proper course for the petitioners was to approach the jurisdictional High Courts and challenge the relevant State law provisions there.

Conclusion: The petitions were not entertained on merits and were disposed of without interference with the State demands, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue relief before the jurisdictional High Courts.

---