TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.- This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated 14th December, 1972, of a Bench decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 3464 of 1971. The Division Bench dismissed an application under article 226 of the Constitution filed by the appellant. The appellant was a tanner who had his tannery at Vizianagaram and was at the material time a dealer under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter called the "State Act" and the "Central Act" respectively. The appellant purchases raw hides and skins in the State of Andhra Pradesh and tans the same. The appellant used mostly to sell such tanned hides in the course of inter-State trade. The first respondent, i.e., the Commercial Tax Officer, Vizianagaram, by his order dated 30th January, 1969, had assessed the appellant's inter-State sales turnover at Rs. 16,23,194.29 and levied a tax of Rs. 48,695.82 under the Central Act. The local purchase turnover of raw hides was assessed at Rs. 7,92,585 and a tax of Rs. 23,777.66 was also levied. The appellant had filed previously Writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a dealer who brought raw hides and skins from outside the State and tanned these locally was taxed on the amount of the sale of such tanned hides and skins, whereas the locally purchased raw hides and skins and tanned were taxed on the amount of the purchase of the raw hides and skins the price of which compared to the price of tanned hides and skins would be very insignificant. It was submitted that such taxation scheme, therefore, discriminated against the import of raw hides and skins for bringing them inside the State. It was submitted that this offended article 304(a) of the Constitution inasmuch as the goods manufactured or produced locally got a more favourable treatment than the goods imported from other States. After considering the decisions of this Court in Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid Co. v. State of Madras [1963] 14 STC 355 (SC); [1963] Supp 2 SCR 435, A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor Co. v. State of Madras [1964] 15 STC 719 (SC); [1964] 8 SCR 217, State of Madras v. N.K. Nataraja Mudaliar [1968] 22 STC 376 (SC); [1968] 3 SCR 829 and Rattan Lal Co. v. Assessing Authority [1970] 25 STC 136 (SC); [1969] 2 SCR 544, the High Court was of the view that every tax did not interfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Madras, that some of his goods had been sent from Madras to his depot in Andhra Pradesh and that the sale of those goods were intra-State sales in Andhra Pradesh where they had been taxed as such. The Commercial Tax Officer, however, held that the goods had been moved from the State of Madras under contracts of sale and were therefore taxable as inter-State sales under the Central Act. The respondent thereupon filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court held that sub-sections (2), (2A) and (5) of section 8 of the Central Act, as these stood at the relevant time, imposed or authorised the imposition of varying rates of tax in different States on similar inter-State transactions and the resultant inequality in the burden of tax affected and impeded inter-State trade, commerce and intercourse and thereby offended articles 301 and 303(1) of the Constitution. The application of section 9(3) of the Act was also considered. Against the said decision there was an appeal to this Court. This Court noted that the view taken by the High Court was influenced by two decisions of this Court on the interpretation of article 304(a), namely, in Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat higher but that did not contravene the equality clause contemplated by article 304 of the Constitution. In that view of the matter and as these cases have been specifically dealt with, it is no longer necessary for us to discuss in detail the decisions in the cases of Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid Co. v. State of Madras [1963] 14 STC 355 (SC); [1963] Supp 2 SCR 435 and A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor Co. v. State of Madras [1964] 15 STC 719 (SC); [1964] 8 SCR 217, upon which reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant before us. On a plain reading of article 304 along with the provisions of the Central Act, we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by this Court in Rattan Lal Co. v. Assessing Authority [1970] 25 STC 136 (SC); [1969] 2 SCR 544. It further appears to us that there is another aspect. The levy by the State Act is in consonance with the scheme of the Central Act. By sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Central Act, the tax payable by any dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce not falling under sub-section (1), shall be at the rate specified in sub-sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
