Builders Supply Corporation v. Union of India('), in which it was held that the Government of India was entitled to claim priority for arrears of income-tax due to it from a citizen over debts from him to uns.ecured creditors and that the English common law doctrine of the priority of Crown debts has been given judicial recognition in the territory known as "Btitish India" prior to 1950 in regard to the recovery of tax dues in priority to other private debts of the tax-payer. It was pointed out therefore that the English Common Law doctrine having been incorporated into Indian law, was a 'law in force' in the territory of India, and, by virtue of Art. 372 (1) of the Constitution of India, it continued to be in force in India until it was validly altered, repealed or amended. It was, however, argued tor the respondents that the authority of the decision of this Court in Builders Supply Corporation v. Union of India(') has been affected to some extent by the later decision of a larger Bench of this Court in The Super· intendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. The Corporation of Calcutta,('), in which it was held that the rule of English Common law that the State was not bound by the provisions of a statute unfess it was expressly named or brought in by necessary implication, was ·not accepted as a rule of construction throughout India and therefore . it has not become law of the land. It was further held that even on the assumption that it was accepted as a rule of construction throughout India, it was only a rule of construction and not a rule of substantive law and therefore cannot be said to be "a law in force" within the meaning of Art. 372. Lastly, this Court expressed the view that the rule of construction was incongruous in a democratic republic and it was inconsistent with the rule of law based on tl1e doctrine of equality and therefore the said canon of ·construction should not be applied for construing statutes in India. Tn our opinion, there is nothing in this judgment which affects the authority of the previous decision of this Court in Builders Supply Corporation v. Union of India('). On the other hand, the majority judgment of the learned Chief Justice has referred to the decision in H. Snowden Marshall v. People of the State of New York(') which lays down a similar doctrine, namely, that the State of New York has the common law prerogative right of priority over unsecured creditors, and distinguished the case on the ground that it had nothing to do with the ru~e of construction but was based upon the common law prerogative of the Crown.
