Page 88 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

6 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
“………, if the rule has to be struck down as imposing unrea-
sonable or discriminatory standards, it could not be done merely on
any apriori reasoning but only as a result of materials placed before
the Court by way of scientific analysis. It is obvious that this can be
done only when the party invoking the protection of Article 14 makes
averments with details to sustain such a plea and leads evidence to es-
tablish his allegations. That where a party seeks to impeach the validi-
ty of a rule made by a competent authority on the ground that the
rules offend Art.
14 the burden is on him to plead and prove the infirmity is
too well established to need elaboration. If, therefore, the respondent
desired to challenge the validity of the rule on the ground either of its
unreasonableness or its discriminatory nature, he had to lay a founda-
tion for it by setting out the facts necessary to sustain such a plea and
adduce cogent and convincing evidence to make out his case, for there
is a presumption that every factor which is relevant or material has
been taken into account in formulating the classification of the zones
and the prescription of the minimum standards to each zone, and
where we have a rule framed with the assistance of a committee con-
taining experts such as the one constituted under Section 3 of the Act,
that presumption is strong, if not overwhelming … …..”
(v) In A.C. Aggarwal, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi v. Mst. Ram Kali
reported in AIR 1968 SC 1, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reiterated the legal position thus :
“…….. The presumption is always in favour of the constitu-
tionality of an enactment, since it must be assumed that the legislature
understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people,
and its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience
and its discriminations are based on adequate grounds.”
(vi) In Pathumma and Others v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1978 SC
771 = 1978 SCR (2) 537, a Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as follows :
“It is obvious that the legislature is in the best position to un-
derstand and appreciate the needs of the people as enjoined by the
Constitution to bring about social reforms for the upliftment of the
backward and the weaker sections of the society and for the improve-
ment of the lot of poor people. The Court will therefore, interfere in
this process only when the statute is clearly violative of the right con-
ferred on the citizen under Part III of the Constitution or when the Act
is beyond the legislative competence of the legislature or such other
grounds. It is for this reason that the Courts have recognised that there
is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute
and the onus to prove its invalidity lies on the party which assails the
same.”
(vii) In M.L. Kamra v. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, New India Assur-
ance Co. Ltd., reported in 1992 AIR 1072 : 1992 SCR (1) 220, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :
“It is settled law that there is a presumption of constitutionali-
ty of the rule. The Court ought not to interpret the statutory provi-

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  88