9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the legality of an amendment in the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 regarding the liability of sales tax on goods intended for production, alleged violation of Art. 14 on discrimination between manufacturers, excessive restriction under Art. 19(1)(f), and refusal to amend the Registration Certificate affecting rights under Art. 19(1)(f). Analysis: The case involved a challenge to an amendment in the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, specifically the deletion of sub-s. (b) of item (i) of sub-cl. (b) of cl. (1), which made sales of goods to a registered dealer intended for use in production of goods for sale liable to sales tax. The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing iron and steel materials, argued that the amendment discriminated between manufacturers based on how goods were supplied, violating Art. 14. The Court examined the scheme of the Act, emphasizing the definitions of 'contract' and provisions related to registration and exemptions under sections 2, 9, 12, and 15(1)(b)(i)(b) and (c). The deletion of sub-clause (b) was contested on grounds of discrimination between materials used for manufacturing goods for sale and those used in contract execution. However, the Court held that the legislature's decision to tax certain articles to raise revenue did not introduce discrimination, as the focus should be on persons, not articles. The petitioner also alleged that the restriction imposed by the amendment was excessive under Art. 19(1)(f), impacting their ability to compete with manufacturers outside the state. The Court reasoned that if the legislature deemed certain classes of goods taxable, it was a policy decision beyond judicial review. The argument that the tax imposed an unreasonable restriction on trade was dismissed, as the legislature's policy choices were not subject to court interference. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's second contention regarding excessive restriction under Art. 19(1)(f). Regarding the refusal to amend the Registration Certificate, the Court noted that in light of its decisions on the first two points, the third point raised by the petitioner had no merit. Consequently, the petition challenging the amendment was dismissed, ruling in favor of the respondent. The petitioner was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent, concluding the judgment. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the amendment to the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, rejecting the petitioner's arguments of discrimination, excessive restriction, and refusal to amend the Registration Certificate. The Court emphasized the legislative authority to determine taxable articles and policies, affirming the constitutionality of the tax amendment and dismissing the petition with costs awarded to the respondent.
|
