1994 (11) TMI 391 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Power of the State to impose tax on certain goods at a particular rate.
2. Power of the State to grant exemption to local units, affecting the liability of imported goods to sales tax.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Power of the State to Impose Tax on Certain Goods at a Particular Rate
The first question addressed is whether the State has the power to impose tax on goods such as edible oils and dry fruits at a particular rate, even if it is higher than the rates in neighboring states. The petitioners argued that the State Government taxed these items at 8%, higher than in neighboring states, thus contradicting the State's policy of rationalizing the tax structure with neighboring states and creating parity.

The court referred to several precedents, including East India Tobacco Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh, V. Venugopala Ravi Varma Rajah v. Union of India, and Khazan Chand v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, to establish that the State has wide discretion in selecting the objects of taxation and determining tax rates. The court emphasized that it is for the Legislature to decide the objects and rates of taxation, and courts should not interfere with these decisions.

The court concluded that the State has plenary power to select goods for taxation and prescribe tax rates. The fact that a class of goods was not previously taxed or is taxed at a lower rate in neighboring states is not a valid ground to challenge the legality or constitutionality of the taxing statute. The court found no merit in the petitioners' argument that economic hardships or increased prices due to the tax should invalidate the tax. The first question of law was thus decided in favor of the State's power to impose the tax.

Issue 2: Power of the State to Grant Exemption to Local Units
The second question involved whether the State has the power to grant exemptions to local units, thereby making imported goods liable for sales tax while exempting locally manufactured goods. The petitioners contended that this exemption resulted in discrimination against importers and violated Articles 14, 301, and 304 of the Constitution by restricting the free flow of trade and commerce.

The court noted that the power to grant exemptions is provided under Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962. The State Government exercised this power through Notification S.R.O. No. 93 dated March 7, 1991, which granted exemptions to goods manufactured by small-scale industrial units (SSI) registered with the Directorate of Industries and Commerce.

The court emphasized that the petitioners did not challenge the validity of the exemption notifications in their writ petitions. Therefore, the court could not determine the validity of these notifications. The court held that without challenging the exemption notifications, the petitioners' argument of discrimination could not be entertained.

The court further explained that the exemption was a general phenomenon covering all types of goods and dealers, provided they were local SSI units. The exemption did not single out any particular type of goods or specific category of dealers. The court cited Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab to support the view that exemptions to encourage industrialization are not discriminatory and do not violate the concept of economic unity.

The court also referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. and Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid & Co. v. State of Madras, which held that taxes that directly and immediately restrict trade attract the provisions of Article 301. However, the court found that the tax on edible oil did not impede the free flow of trade, as the rate was uniform for all edible oil, whether manufactured locally or imported.

The court concluded that the exemption granted to local SSI units did not violate the equality principle under Article 14 or the free-flow of trade and commerce under Articles 301 and 304. The petitioners' argument regarding double taxation due to the imposition of toll tax in addition to sales tax was also rejected, as toll tax is a separate levy from sales tax.

Conclusion
The petitions were dismissed on both counts, with the court holding that the State has the authority to impose taxes and grant exemptions as per its discretion. The connected C.M.Ps. were disposed of, and interim directions were vacated. The petitions were dismissed without any order as to costs.

← Previous Next →