9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (10) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that is canvassed in this writ petition. The petitioner is a dealer in some commodities including milk powder. Sales tax is sought to be imposed on his sales of milk powder by virtue of the then entry 43 in Schedule I at a single point. The petitioner seeks a certiorari quashing this assessment order of the Principal Commercial Tax Officer, Second Circle, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, for the assessment year 1972-73 to the extent that it imposes sales tax on the sales of milk powder. The argument of Sri Chennakesava Rao for the petitioner is this: The entry excludes fresh milk from taxation. In fact, the Government has issued G.O. Ms. No. 1091 dated 10th June, 1957, exempting milk from sales tax. But the entry makes milk foods, powder and baby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... situated, the imposition of tax cannot be questioned on the ground of hostile discrimination. G.O. Ms. No. 1091 is not applicable to the petitioner. The first and the foremost feature that should be taken note of is that the legislature itself has made a distinction between fresh milk on the one side and milk foods, powder and baby milk foods on the other. It makes the latter category exigible to tax. The legislature in exercise of its power and its wisdom has chosen to make this distinction between the two categories. It is always recognised that the State has a wide discretion in selecting the persons or objects it will tax. A Statute is not open to attack on the ground that it taxes some persons or objects and not others. It is only w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he legislature is free to choose objects of taxation, impose different rates, exempt classes of property from taxation, subject different classes of property to tax in different ways and adopt different modes of assessment. A taxing statute may contravene article 14 of the Constitution if it seeks to impose on the same class of property, persons, transactions, or occupations similarly situate, incidence of taxation which leads to obvious inequality." Continuing, the Supreme Court observed: "It is for the legislature to determine the objects on which tax shall be levied, and the rates thereof. The courts will not strike down an Act as denying the equal protection of the laws merely because other objects could have been, but are not, taxed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ood in common parlance." It is to be noted that the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act does not define the words "milk", "fresh milk" or "milk powder". So, the entry will have to be understood in the light of the meanings of the words used therein as they are generally understood in common parlance. Now, is there any reasonable classification between "fresh milk" and "milk foods, powder and baby milk foods"? In the counter-affidavit, the respondent has pointed out the distinguishing features between the two categories. As these items are understood in common parlance, they are different objects. It is also of common experience that the uses of these commodities also are somewhat different. Milk foods, powder and baby milk foods are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roundnut oil was not changed, and so it continued to be groundnut oil within the meaning of rule 18(2). It was, therefore, held that hydrogenated groundnut oil also was covered by the expression "groundnut oil" in rule 18(2). It must be noticed that rule 18(2) did not itself keep any distinction between "groundnut oil" and "hydrogenated groundnut oil". Therefore, the court had to consider, without the aid of the legislature's view in the matter, whether hydrogenated groundnut oil also came within the category of groundnut oil. But such is not the case here. The legislature itself has made clear distinction between "fresh milk" and "milk powder". As we have already pointed out, there is reasonable basis for that differentiation. Since the cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... courts have little concern." Because there was reasonable differentia between refined oil and raw groundnut oil and groundnut kernel, the Full Bench held that the legislative distinction was constitutional. This decision is on all fours with the features of the present case. The legislature has a reasonable basis for different classification between fresh milk and milk powder. Therefore, the entry cannot be challenged as being opposed to article 14 of the Constitution. A.P. Dairy Development Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India[1975] 2 A.P.L.J. Sh. N. 29. is a decision of our learned brother, Jeevan Reddy, J., sitting singly. The learned Judge was construing the meaning of entry I-B in the Finance Act, 1969. While construing the languag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
