Impugned Notification Upheld: Appeals Dismissed

The Court concluded that the impugned notification did not contravene Article 286(3) as the parliamentary declaration of "iron and steel" as essential goods was not in existence at the time of the Madhya Bharat Act's enactment. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision. Appeals were dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "iron and steel" under Section 2 of the Essential Goods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax on Sale or Purchase) Act.
2. Validity of the notification issued by the State of Madhya Bharat under Article 286(3) of the Constitution.
3. Whether the impugned notification contravenes Article 286(3) of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the term "iron and steel" under Section 2 of the Essential Goods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax on Sale or Purchase) Act:
The appellant argued that the term "iron and steel" in Section 2 of the Act should be interpreted broadly to include all articles made exclusively from iron and steel, in which the identity of iron and steel has not been lost. This interpretation was based on the commercial sense of the terms and the legislative history, which indicated a broad and wide construction. The appellant referred to various legislative provisions, such as the Iron and Steel (Control of Production and Distribution) Order, 1941, and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, to support this argument. However, the High Court rejected this broad interpretation, concluding that the term "iron and steel" did not include articles made from these materials.

2. Validity of the notification issued by the State of Madhya Bharat under Article 286(3) of the Constitution:
The appellant contended that the notification issued by the State of Madhya Bharat on October 24, 1953, was invalid as it contravened Article 286(3) of the Constitution. Article 286(3) stipulates that no State law imposing a tax on the sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament to be essential for the life of the community shall have effect unless it has been reserved for the President's consideration and received his assent. The appellant argued that since "iron and steel" were declared essential under Section 2 of the Act, the notification should be invalidated for not complying with Article 286(3).

3. Whether the impugned notification contravenes Article 286(3) of the Constitution:
The Court analyzed whether the impugned notification contravened Article 286(3). It was noted that Article 286(3) could be invoked only if three conditions were satisfied:
1. The impugned law must be made by the Legislature of a State post-Constitution.
2. The impugned law must impose or authorize the imposition of a tax on goods declared by Parliament as essential for the life of the community.
3. The law must be reserved for the President's consideration and have received his assent.

The Court found that the first condition was satisfied as the notification was issued under Act 30 of 1950, which was enacted post-Constitution. However, the second condition was not met because the parliamentary declaration of "iron and steel" as essential goods was made after the enactment of the Madhya Bharat Act. Therefore, the notification did not contravene Article 286(3) since the declaration was not pre-existing at the time of the Act's passage.

The Court also referenced prior judgments, such as Sardar Soma Singh v. The State of Pepsu and Firm of A. Gowrishankar v. Sales Tax Officer, which supported the conclusion that Article 286(3) applies only to post-Constitution laws and declarations.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the impugned notification did not contravene Article 286(3) because the parliamentary declaration of "iron and steel" as essential goods was not in existence at the time of the Madhya Bharat Act's enactment. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision. Appeals were dismissed with costs.

---