Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1397 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of VAT - interpretation of statute - The petitioners' case is that live chicken comes within the meaning of live stock and exempt from payment of Value Added Tax - The challenge to the impugned amendment to the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act is primarily on the ground that the impugned enactment is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Held that: - It is well settled legal principle that the State does not have to tax everything in order to tax something; it enjoys a wide discretion in the matters of taxation and enjoys more freedom for classifying the objects to be taxed and the rates of taxation and the burden for proving discrimination is heavier still when a taxing statute is under attack. Further, the State can validly pick and choose one commodity for taxation and the same is not open to attack under Article 14 - the burden is on the petitioners to show that the impugned amendment is discriminatory and offends Article 14 of the Constitution. In taxation, the legislature possess greater freedom in classification and the petitioners to succeed in striking down the impugned amendment should be able to demonstrate that the impugned amendment makes an improper discrimination, it is arbitrary and amounts to class legislation. The argument of the petitioners is that the live chicken sold in Mahe region alone cannot be subjected to payment of tax and it amounts to a class legislation as the same product is exempted from tax in other regions in the Union Territory of Puducherry. For the petitioners to succeed, it is not sufficient for the petitioners to state that it is a class legislation. What is required to be established is that such legislation makes an improper discrimination. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the Government of Puducherry was justified in making such a distinction and whether the same was reasonable and had a valid basis - the basis for bringing about the impugned amendment, which in fact came into effect from 01.01.2012, initially as a notification, is based on valid and reasonable classification and does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|