Sadiq Bakery etc. Vs. The State of A.P. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos.5117/81, 7340/81, 3656-84/82, 6381-82, 6951-52/82, 8010-19/82, 8108-11/82, 9019-20/82, 5241-60/83, 1734-35/83 & 559/560/83.
Petitioner: Sadiq Bakery etc.
Respondent: The State of A.P. & Ors.
Apeal: Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos.5117/81, 7340/81, 3656-84/82, 6381-82, 6951-52/82, 8010-19/82, 8108-11/82, 9019-20/82, 5241-60/83, 1734-35/83 & 559/560/83.
Judges: SABYASACHI MUKHARJI & S.RANGANATHAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 24, 1987
Head Note:
ANDHRA PRADESH SALES TAX ACT, 1957
Schedule I, Item Nos.117 and 129 – Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 and 19(1(g) – Challenge to the imposition of sales tax on bread biscuits – Differential rate of taxation up
Held:
Economic wisdom of a tax or lack of it are within the exclusive domain of the legislature – The Court can only consider the question of rationality that capacity to pay tax increases with an increase of receipts.
Held –
Cases Reffered:
1.State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Nalla Raja Reddy & Ors.,(1967) 3 SCR 28.
2.New Manek Chowk Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Others, (1967) 2 SCR 679.
3.Annapurna Biscuit (Mfg.) Co. and Another v. The State of U.P. and Another, (1975) 35 S.T.C. 127
4.Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Another Etc. v. State of Bihar and Others, (1983) 3 S.C.R. 130.
2.New Manek Chowk Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Others, (1967) 2 SCR 679.
3.Annapurna Biscuit (Mfg.) Co. and Another v. The State of U.P. and Another, (1975) 35 S.T.C. 127
4.Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Another Etc. v. State of Bihar and Others, (1983) 3 S.C.R. 130.
JUDGEMENT:
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.
W.P. NOS: 5117/81, 3656-84/82, 5241-5260/83
1. These four batches of Writ Petitions challenge the imposition of sales tax on bread, rusk and bun under the A.P. Sales Tax Act, 1957 as illegal. The main and the first contention was that the bread and biscuits belong to one homogeneous class but these have been differently treated for taxation under Schedule I, Item No. 117 and Schedule I, Item No. 129 of the said Act. In other words, the contention of the petitioners is that the bread and biscuits are the same, they should not be differently taxed. The purchasers and sellers of bread and biscuits have been differently taxed. In support of this contention reliance was placed on certain decisions of this Court, namely:- State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Nalla Raja Reddy & Ors.,(1967) 3 SCR 28; New Manek Chowk Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Others, (1967) 2 SCR 679. We do not find any proposition in those decisions in support of this contention of the petitioners. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Annapurna Biscuit (Mfg.) Co. and Another v. The State of U.P. and Another, (1975) 35 S.T.C. 127 does not deal with this contention at all.
2. The second contention sought to be raised was that the multiple point tax violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioners being Bakeries, this contention is not open to the petitioners.
3. The third contention sought to be raised was that excise duty and sales tax are imposed on the same items. This also does not arise in the case of the petitioners who are Bakeries. Apart from that the taxable events in these two impositions are different. So this contention cannot in any event be raised.
4. The fourth contention sought to be raised was the surcharge. This point in our opinion does not arise. Furthermore this point is concluded by the observations of this Court in the case of Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Another Etc. v. State of Bihar and Others, (1983) 3 S.C.R. 130. Indeed all these contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners have been negatived by this Court in the aforesaid decision.
5. We reiterate that the economic wisdom of a tax or lack of it are within the exclusive domain of the legislature. The only question for the Court to consider it whether there is rationality in that behalf of the legislature that capacity to pay the tax increases by and large with an increase of receipts. From any point of view there is rationality in this proposition. It is sound commonsense. It is in consonance with social justice to which we are committed by our Constitution.
6. In that view of the matter the challenge to the imposition under Article 14 as well as Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution are not sustainable.
7. These Writ Petitions must fail and are dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, are vacated.
W.P. Nos. 5281-82/82, 6951-52/82, 8010-19/82, 8108-11/82, 9019-20/82, 1734-35/83 & 5595-60/83.
8. In view of the Judgments in W.P. Nos. 5117/81, 3656-84/82, 5241-5260/83 and 7340/81, these petitions must also fail and are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Petitions dismissed.
W.P. NOS: 5117/81, 3656-84/82, 5241-5260/83
1. These four batches of Writ Petitions challenge the imposition of sales tax on bread, rusk and bun under the A.P. Sales Tax Act, 1957 as illegal. The main and the first contention was that the bread and biscuits belong to one homogeneous class but these have been differently treated for taxation under Schedule I, Item No. 117 and Schedule I, Item No. 129 of the said Act. In other words, the contention of the petitioners is that the bread and biscuits are the same, they should not be differently taxed. The purchasers and sellers of bread and biscuits have been differently taxed. In support of this contention reliance was placed on certain decisions of this Court, namely:- State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Nalla Raja Reddy & Ors.,(1967) 3 SCR 28; New Manek Chowk Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Others, (1967) 2 SCR 679. We do not find any proposition in those decisions in support of this contention of the petitioners. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Annapurna Biscuit (Mfg.) Co. and Another v. The State of U.P. and Another, (1975) 35 S.T.C. 127 does not deal with this contention at all.
2. The second contention sought to be raised was that the multiple point tax violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioners being Bakeries, this contention is not open to the petitioners.
3. The third contention sought to be raised was that excise duty and sales tax are imposed on the same items. This also does not arise in the case of the petitioners who are Bakeries. Apart from that the taxable events in these two impositions are different. So this contention cannot in any event be raised.
4. The fourth contention sought to be raised was the surcharge. This point in our opinion does not arise. Furthermore this point is concluded by the observations of this Court in the case of Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Another Etc. v. State of Bihar and Others, (1983) 3 S.C.R. 130. Indeed all these contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners have been negatived by this Court in the aforesaid decision.
5. We reiterate that the economic wisdom of a tax or lack of it are within the exclusive domain of the legislature. The only question for the Court to consider it whether there is rationality in that behalf of the legislature that capacity to pay the tax increases by and large with an increase of receipts. From any point of view there is rationality in this proposition. It is sound commonsense. It is in consonance with social justice to which we are committed by our Constitution.
6. In that view of the matter the challenge to the imposition under Article 14 as well as Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution are not sustainable.
7. These Writ Petitions must fail and are dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, are vacated.
W.P. Nos. 5281-82/82, 6951-52/82, 8010-19/82, 8108-11/82, 9019-20/82, 1734-35/83 & 5595-60/83.
8. In view of the Judgments in W.P. Nos. 5117/81, 3656-84/82, 5241-5260/83 and 7340/81, these petitions must also fail and are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Petitions dismissed.
