1961 (6) TMI 18 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Alleged violation of Article 303 of the Constitution.
4. Validity of Rule 14-A framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act:
The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, arguing that it discriminates between dealers in different states. They contended that while dealers in certain states are exempt from sales tax on specific goods, dealers in Andhra Pradesh are required to pay tax on inter-State sales despite the goods being subject to a single point tax in the state. This, according to the petitioners, results in unfair competition and violates the principle of equal protection under Article 14.

2. Alleged Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that Section 8 of the Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it results in discrimination between dealers in different states. The Court, however, held that Section 8 does not by itself make any classification but merely adopts the exemptions granted by different states. The Court stated, "It enunciates the one common and uniform principle applicable to all States, viz., that any class of goods which was immune from taxation in any State is exempted under section 8." The discrimination, if any, arises from the different tax laws of the states and not from Section 8 itself. Thus, the Court found no violation of Article 14.

3. Alleged Violation of Article 303 of the Constitution:
The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 868 of 1958 contended that Section 8(2) is repugnant to Article 303 of the Constitution, which prohibits Parliament from making laws that give preference to one state over another. The Court, however, clarified that Article 303 is specifically limited to entries concerning trade and commerce and does not apply to taxing laws made under different entries. The Court stated, "Article 303 envisages only entries relating to topics over which the different Legislatures have power to legislate. Taxing laws such as the impugned one are covered by the other group of entries in the concerned lists." Therefore, Section 8 does not violate Article 303.

4. Validity of Rule 14-A framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh:
The petitioners argued that Rule 14-A, which prescribes a period for the submission of a return in C Form, is ultra vires the powers of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Court held that prescribing a period for the submission of a return falls within the scope of "prescribed manner" in Section 8(4) of the Act. The Court stated, "The manner in which the declaration should be furnished would certainly include the time within which it should be furnished." Therefore, Rule 14-A is valid and within the powers of the State Government.

Conclusion:
The Court held that Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act is constitutional and does not violate Articles 14 or 303 of the Constitution. The validity of Rule 14-A framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh was also upheld. Consequently, all the writ petitions were dismissed with costs.