State Trading Corporation v. CTO, AIR 1963
Introduction
This case will tell us about the position of the company, as we know the company is a legal person but along with it we will understand in the present case that, whether the company is a citizen of the Country where it has been registered. And as a citizen whether the company will be entitled to get the fundamental right of a Citizen. So get ready to grab a new understanding of the company.
Facts
- The appellant is a private Ltd. company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and the second petitioner is a shareholder in the first petitioner (appellant) company.
- The appellant along with K.B Lal went to the court under Article 32 of the Constitution to quash the proceeding which has imposed by the Andhra Pradesh and Bihar governments' commercial tax officer and also to quash the notice of demand issued for payment of the sum assessed.
Appellant contentions
- Claimed to be "Indian citizen" as all of its shareholders are Indian citizens.
- Fundamental rights under Article 19 of the constitution have been infringed as a result of the proceeding taken and the demand for sale tax made by appropriate authorities.
- Part II of the Constitution relating to Citizenship and the Citizenship Act are not relevant for our purposes because it does not define a Citizen nor does it deal with the totality of citizenship.
- By referring to Article 372 which preserves the pre-existing laws, they contended
- Volume 6, Halsbury's Laws of England lays down that a company is a legal entity when it is incorporated and its nationality and domicile are determined by its place of registration.
- Volume 9, Halsbury's Laws of England says that the concept of nationality applies to corporations and it depends upon the country of its corporation.
- Persons include all citizens and non-citizens, natural and artificial persons.
Issue
- Whether the State Trading Corporation, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, a Citizen within the meaning of the Constitution and can ask for the enforcement of Fundamental rights guaranteed to the Citizen?
Ratio Decidendi
- Part II of the Constitution determines who are citizens at the commencement of the Constitution only. Therefore it deals with natural persons only.
- Articles 15,16,19,29,30 are available to the citizens only. The makers of the Constitution were well aware of the distinction between the expressions "person" and "any citizens". It deliberately kept out non-citizens. Non-citizens include aliens and artificial persons.
- The Court is unable to accept the contention made by the appellant that "Persons include all citizens and non-citizens, natural and artificial persons". Part III of the Constitution deals with fundamental rights, of which some are available to "any person" whereas some are available only to "all citizens".
- S. 2(1)(f) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, defines "person" as it doesn't include any company or association, or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. Therefore it excludes artificial or juristic persons.
- Difference between Nationality & Citizenship
- Nationality may arise for consideration under international law, on the other hand, "Citizenship" has jural relationship under municipal law.
- Nationality determines the civil rights of a person, natural or artificial, regarding international law. Whereas citizenship is concerned with civic rights under municipal law.
- All citizens are nationals of a particular state but all nationals may not be citizens of the state.
- Rights under cl. (b), (d) and (e) of Article 19 can not be applied by a corporation. Hence a corporation can not be considered as a citizen within the meaning of Article 19.
- The makers of the Constitution altogether left juristic persons in Part II of the Constitution, and also later in Part III made a clear distinction between persons and citizens.
Judgment
- It has cleared that a company cannot have the status of a citizen under the constitution of India.
- A company has no F.R. which is expressly available to citizens only however Company can claim to protect those rights that are available to all persons.
- In the present case, the petitioner claimed for article 19 which is not available to a 'legal person' therefore appeal was dismissed.
