1969 (4) TMI 95 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality and validity of the Amendment Act 26 of 1961.
2. Alleged contravention of Articles 13, 14, 19, 286, and Part XIII of the Constitution.
3. Legislative competence of the State to levy tax on mica.
4. Requirement of President's assent under Article 200.
5. Alleged discrimination under the amended provisions.
6. Impact on the freedom of trade and commerce under Article 301.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality and Validity of the Amendment Act 26 of 1961:
The petitioners challenged the legality, constitutionality, and validity of the Amendment Act 26 of 1961, asserting that it was invalid for want of the President's assent and contravened various constitutional provisions. They sought a writ of mandamus to direct the State Government and tax authorities to forbear from giving effect to the provisions of the Second Amendment Act and to refund the tax already collected.

2. Alleged Contravention of Articles 13, 14, 19, 286, and Part XIII of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that the amended provisions contravened Articles 13, 14, 19, and 286 of the Constitution. They claimed that the amendment interfered with the free flow of trade and commerce guaranteed by Article 301 and was not justified under any provisions in Part XIII. They also argued that the amendment suffered from discrimination as mica imported from other States was not subjected to this tax, while mica produced or manufactured in Andhra Pradesh was taxed.

3. Legislative Competence of the State to Levy Tax on Mica:
The petitioners contended that the legislative competence of the State was questionable as the amendment, in pith and substance, related to item No. 41 in the Union List, which is within the exclusive domain of the Parliament. They also argued that it could be considered a law with respect to duties enumerated in item 84 in the Union List.

4. Requirement of President's Assent Under Article 200:
The petitioners argued that the amending Act was void as it was not reserved for the consideration of the President in compliance with the requirement of Article 200 of the Constitution. However, the respondents countered that there was no obligation on the Governor to withhold assent and reserve the Bill for the President's consideration under Article 200.

5. Alleged Discrimination Under the Amended Provisions:
The petitioners claimed that the amendment was discriminatory as it taxed mica produced or manufactured in Andhra Pradesh but not mica imported from other States. The respondents argued that the discrimination alleged was not true, as the last dealer who purchased mica in the State was liable to tax irrespective of whether the goods were imported from other States or produced or manufactured in Andhra Pradesh.

6. Impact on the Freedom of Trade and Commerce Under Article 301:
The petitioners contended that the levy of tax on mica interfered with the free flow of trade and commerce guaranteed by Article 301 of the Constitution. They argued that the taxes imposed were neither regulatory nor compensatory and hence were hit by Article 301. The respondents countered that the tax on purchase by the last dealer in the State did not impede the free flow of trade and commerce and was not prohibited by Article 301. They further argued that Article 304 empowered the State Legislature to impose taxes on goods imported from other States, provided similar goods manufactured or produced in the State were subjected to the same tax.

Judgment:
The court held that the impugned provisions did not contravene Article 286 as no tax was being levied on the purchase or sale that immediately occasioned the export of mica. The court also found no inconsistency between sections 5 and 7 of the principal Act and section 38 of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. The court ruled that the impugned provisions did not directly or immediately impede the free flow of trade and commerce and thus did not fall within the inhibition of Article 301. The plea that the amendment was bad for want of the President's assent under Article 200 was also rejected. The court concluded that the impugned legislation was within the purview of entry 54 in the State List and did not infringe upon the petitioners' rights under Articles 14, 19, etc. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed with costs.

← Previous Next →