nThe other misdirections which were sought to be pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused I and 2 were minor misdirections, if any, and need not detain us, as we are clearly of the opinion that even -though those misdirections were there they were not such as to vitiate the verdict of the jury. On what principle the situs was fixed will presently be considered. The first part is that there is difference between the secret Advocate Chandigarh information recorded in Exh. If a sale is inside a State, the power of that State to tax it under Entry 54 remains unaffected.
London County Council(1). But when once that is done, the problem is solved. The tonnage shall be rounded off to the nearest multiple of hundred tons and for this purpose any tonnage consisting of kilograms shall be ignored and thereafter if such tonnage is not a multiple of hundred, then, if the last figure in that amount is fifty tons or more, the tonnage shall be increased to the next higher tonnage which is a Chandigarh Lawyers multiple of hundred and if the last figure is less than fifty tons, the tonnage shall be reduced to the next lower tonnage which is a multiple of hundred; and the tonnage so rounded off shall be the tonnage of the ship for the purposes of this section.
In this respect, article 286(1) (a) effected a fundamental alteration in the law under Entry 48 in List II and section 100(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, as construed by the courts. These decisions, as distinguished from the opinions which are delivered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as advice to the Crown, are pronounced in the form of judgments and are binding on the House as precedents. Now we may examine how this provision is designed to put an end to multiple taxation.
The question whether the House bad the power to reconsider the previous decisions of its own and if it thought the decisions wrong to overrule ,or depart from them in subsequent cases was considered in Street Tramways v. The House of Lords in England has always considered itself bound by its previous decisions. P-21 and the information sent to Circle Officer, Nohar by Exh. Whereas under these provisions a State could tax irrespective of where a sale took place, provided there was sufficient territorial nexus, under article 286(1) (a) that power can be exercised only 771 when it takes place inside the State, mere nexi being insufficient to support such a power.
The High Court has come to the conclusion that there is breach of mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) and Section 42(2) and further Section 43 which was relied by the Special Judge for holding that there was no necessity to comply Section 42 is not applicable. The theory of nexus as a source of jurisdiction to tax was thus abandoned, and the power to tax was annexed to the situs of the sale to be exercised by the State wherein it is fixed and as a given sale can take place only in one State and in no other, it must follow that the power of taxing that sale is capable of exercise only by one State and not others.
The breach of Section 42 has been found in two parts. This process must have the effect of eliminating multiple taxation, because a sale must be either inside or outside a State, and if it is inside one State it must be outside all other States. That is a principle which has been, I believe, without any real decision to the contrary, established now for some centuries, and I am therefore of opinion that in this case it is not competent for Lawyer Chandigarh us to rehear and for counsel to reargue a question which has been recently decided”.
who delivered the judgment of the House observed at page 379:- “A decision of this House once given upon a point of law is conclusive upon this House afterwards, and that it is impossible to raise that question again as if it was res integra and could be reargued, and so the House be asked to reverse its own decision. The scheme of the enactment is to fix, what had not been done under the Government of India Act, 1935, the situs of the sale, and for that purpose, to classify it into two categories, sale inside the State and sale outside the State.
But if the sale is outside a State, article 286(1) (a) prohibits that Chandigarh Advocate State from taxing it. It is useful to refer to the findings of the High Court in the above context, which is quoted below: We thus proceed to first examine the question as to Lawyers Chandigarh whether there is breach of provisions of Section 42(1) and Section 42(2). It was contended that the learned Judge merely reiterated in various places the story of the prosecution and did not point out the weaknesses or the defects in that story, that he did not advert to the various criticisms which were leveled against the story of the prosecution by the counsel for the defence, that he did not point out to the jury the improbabilities of the prosecution story or the incredibility of the prosecution witnesses in regard to the salient features of the prosecution case, that he did not draw the pointed attention of the jury to the infirmities attaching to the prosecution evidence in regard to the test identification parades and that the learned Judge’s summing up to 930 the jury was on the whole unfair and prejudicial to the accused We must however advert to the serious misdirection which it was contended was apparent on- the face of the learned Judge’s charge to the jury and which was the result of the learned Judge’s not bringing into prominence the various points which could be urged in favour of the accused.