9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1962 (4) TMI 57 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxSCOPE OF ARTICLE 14, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - IMPOSITION OF TAX ON SALE OF VIRGINIA TOBACCO AND EXEMPTION FROM TAX ON SALE OF COUNTRY TOBACCO
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the impugned Act is repugnant to Article 14 for discriminating against Virginia tobacco. 2. Whether the impugned legislation contravenes Article 286(1)(b) by imposing a tax on sales in the course of export. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Repugnance to Article 14: The appellants contended that the impugned Act discriminates against Virginia tobacco by imposing a tax on its sale while exempting other types of tobacco, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution. They argued that taxation laws must also satisfy the requirements of Article 14, citing Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. The State of Kerala and Another A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 552. The court acknowledged that taxation laws must pass the test of Article 14 but emphasized that the State has wide discretion in selecting the objects it will tax. A statute is only open to attack if it operates unequally within its range of selection and lacks a valid classification. The court referred to the principles laid out in Willis on "Constitutional Law," stating that a State does not need to tax everything to tax something and is allowed to pick and choose reasonably. The distinction between Virginia and Nattu tobacco was found to be valid based on differences in taste, light, color, texture, market facilities, price, and uses. The court held that these differences justified treating Virginia tobacco as a separate class for taxation purposes. The appellants argued that the differences between Virginia and country tobacco must be germane to the levy of sales tax to constitute a valid classification. The court disagreed, stating that if a State can validly pick and choose one commodity for taxation, the same principle applies to a category of goods. The burden of proving that the classification is invalid lies heavily on the person challenging the legislation, especially in taxation matters. The court cited various U.S. Supreme Court decisions to illustrate the wide latitude given to legislatures in classifying objects for taxation, so long as there is no clear and hostile discrimination. The court concluded that the differences between Virginia and Nattu tobacco justified treating them as separate classes for taxation, thus the impugned legislation did not violate Article 14. 2. Contravention of Article 286(1)(b): The appellants argued that the Amendment Act was ultra vires because it imposed a tax on sales in the course of export, which is prohibited by Article 286(1)(b). They relied on observations from State of Travancore-Cochin and Others v. The Bombay Co. Ltd. [1952] 3 S.T.C. 434, which stated that a sale by export involves integrated activities from the agreement of sale to the delivery of goods for transport out of the country. The court clarified that the observations in the Travancore-Cochin case were meant to refute the narrow interpretation that only sales occurring while goods are in transit qualify as sales in the course of export. The court cited State of Travancore-Cochin & Others v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew-nut Factory and Others [1955] 4 S.T.C. 205, which held that purchases for export are preparatory acts and do not constitute sales in the course of export. Further, the court referred to The State of Madras v. Gurviah Naidu & Co., Ltd. [1955] 6 S.T.C. 717, and The State of Mysore and Another v. Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co. [1958] 9 S.T.C. 188, which reinforced that Article 286(1)(b) applies only to the sale that occasions the export, not to preceding purchases. The court concluded that the impugned legislation did not contravene Article 286(1)(b) as it did not impose a tax on sales in the course of export. Conclusion: Both contentions raised by the appellants failed. The court held that the impugned Act did not violate Article 14 due to valid classification between Virginia and Nattu tobacco. Additionally, the legislation did not contravene Article 286(1)(b) as it did not tax sales in the course of export. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
|
