2002 (1) TMI 1277 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of a notification granting exemption to poultry farmers within the State of Kerala.
2. Allegation of discrimination against poultry farmers from other States.
3. Constitutional validity of the notification under Article 14, 19(1)(g), 301, and 304(a) of the Indian Constitution.

Issue 1: Challenge to the validity of a notification granting exemption to poultry farmers within the State of Kerala.

The petitioner challenged a notification granting exemption to poultry farmers within Kerala on the sale of poultry reared by them in their own farm. The petitioner contended that this notification discriminates against poultry farmers from other states, like Tamil Nadu, as they are denied the same exemption. The petitioner argued that such discrimination violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

Issue 2: Allegation of discrimination against poultry farmers from other States.

The petitioner claimed that the notification discriminated against poultry farmers from states other than Kerala, such as Tamil Nadu. The petitioner highlighted that while poultry farmers within Kerala were granted exemption, those outside the state were not. This selective treatment was argued to be discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of place of birth.

Issue 3: Constitutional validity of the notification under Article 14, 19(1)(g), 301, and 304(a) of the Indian Constitution.

The Court examined the constitutional validity of the notification under various provisions of the Indian Constitution. The Court analyzed Article 301, which guarantees freedom of trade and commerce throughout India but subject to restrictions under Articles 302, 303(2), and 304. The Court held that the notification did not violate Article 301 as it was within the permissible restrictions under Article 304(a), which allows State Legislatures to impose reasonable restrictions in the public interest.

The Court also addressed the petitioner's argument invoking Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession, trade, or business. The Court ruled that the infringement of Article 301 could not be challenged under Article 19(1)(g) as it is not an absolute fundamental right. The Court cited legal precedents to support its interpretation of the constitutional provisions and concluded that the notification was constitutionally valid.

In light of the legal analysis and precedents cited, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the notification and rejecting the petitioner's contentions regarding discrimination and violation of constitutional provisions.

---