1971 (10) TMI 95 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. Alleged discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Alleged violation of Article 301 of the Constitution.
4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Madras v. N.K. Nataraja Mudaliar.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Section 8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956:
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which imposes a higher tax rate on inter-State sales in the absence of C and D forms. The court noted that Section 8(2)(b) was amended by Parliament Act No. 31 of 1958, and the amendment was brought into force on October 1, 1958. The amended section provided that in the absence of C and D forms, the tax rate would be 7% or the rate applicable within the State, whichever is higher. The petitioner argued that this amendment was unconstitutional.

2. Alleged Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution:
The petitioner contended that the amendment to Section 8(2)(b) violates Article 14 of the Constitution as it results in discrimination between dealers engaged in inter-State trade and those engaged in intra-State trade. The court rejected this argument, stating that dealers involved in inter-State trade are not similarly situated to those involved in intra-State trade. The court emphasized that Article 14 is not violated if there is a reasonable basis for the differentia and that the law deals equally with members of a well-defined class.

3. Alleged Violation of Article 301 of the Constitution:
The petitioner also argued that the amendment to Section 8(2)(b) violates Article 301 of the Constitution, which ensures freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout India. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Madras v. N.K. Nataraja Mudaliar, which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 8(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court had observed that various factors, such as freight rates, trading facilities, and availability of efficient transport, influence the flow of trade, and not merely the rate of sales tax. The court concluded that the amendment does not impede inter-State trade and commerce.

4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's Judgment in State of Madras v. N.K. Nataraja Mudaliar:
The court noted that the Supreme Court, in State of Madras v. N.K. Nataraja Mudaliar, had upheld the validity of Section 8(2) of the Act. The petitioner attempted to distinguish this case by arguing that the Supreme Court did not specifically address the arguments related to Section 8(2)(b). However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the binding effect of a decision does not depend on whether a particular argument was considered, provided that the point was actually decided. The court held that the constitutional validity of Section 8(2) having been upheld by the Supreme Court, it was not open to the High Court to declare Section 8(2)(b) unconstitutional.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Section 8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is constitutionally valid and does not violate Articles 14 or 301 of the Constitution. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and upheld the assessment order imposing a 7% tax rate on the petitioner's inter-State sales due to the absence of C and D forms.

← Previous Next →