B. G. SOMANNA & SONS ETC versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 21-07-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

708 
B. G .. SOMANNA & SONS ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
July, 21", 1972· 
[A. N. RAY, I. D. DuA, D. G. PALEKAR AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh General Sales-tax Act, (6 of 1970) Schedule 3 item 
6--Item levyinl! tax on f{roundnuts when purchased by a nzi!ler other than 
a decorticating miller in the state at the poirtt of purchase by such miller 
and in all other cases at the point of purchase by the last dealer who buys 
in the State-Item whether levies tax at two points and is thu.r in conflict 
with Central Sales-tax Act. section 15. 
Under s. 15 of the Central Sales-tax Act the imposition of a tax on the 
sale or purchase of declared goods is inter alia subject to the restriction 
that such tax shall not be levied al more than one stage. Groundnuts are 
declared goods under s. 14 of the Act. Item 6 of schedule 
3 to the 
Andhra Pradesh General Sales-tax Act (6 ell 1957) levies tax on ground-
nuts when purchased by a miller other than a decorticating miller in the 
State at the point of purchase by such miller, and in all other cases at the 
point of purchase by the last dealer'who buy• in the State. The appellants 
were millers other than decorticating miller.. In writ petition• 
under 
Article 226 of the Constitution they challenged the levy of tax at the 
point of purchase by them on the ground that item 6 of •chedule III was 
in conflict with section 15 of the Central Act in as much ., tax on ground-
nut purchased by a non-decorticating miller and later sold ., mch to 
olher dealers would be taxed at two points once in the hand. of the said 
miller, and again, at the point ot purch.,e by the last dealer. The High 
Court dismissed the petition.. 
By certificate 
appeal• 
were filed in this 
Court. 
Dismissing the appeals, 
A 
B 
c 
)) 
E 
HELD : The validity of the levy of tax upon a purchase by a last 
dealer could be questioned by one of the appellants only if he was being 
taxed as a last dealer and not as a miller. It was apparent that the appel-
F 
!ants were being taxed at lhe point of purchase by them as millers only. 
E"ch of the appellants recame liable to the payment of tax as a purcha•-
ing miller just as a last dealer would be liable on the purchases made by 
him. 
Hence the .last dealer and the miller who purchases presumably to 
~onvert the groundnuts into other products, are placed on ·an equal 1Ioot-
1ng. 
It \Vas not shown that there was a possibility of double taxation or 
of taxaticn of the same product at more than one point of purchase. 
G 
[711 DJ 
Sri Venkatas1vara Rice, Ginnirtg & Groundnut Oil Mill 
Contractors 
Co. etc. v. The State of A.P. & Ors., A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 51, applied to. 
[On the facts of the case lhe Court did not find it necessary to consider 
the position of a miller who purchases some grounds for milling and the 
~b~ 
H 
CML J.PPELLATE JURISDICTION: C.A. Nos. 323-332, 1312 & 
1174 Of 1969. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
B. G. SOMANNA v, STATE (Beg, /,) 
709 
Appeals by certificate from the judgment and a decree dated 
September 27, 1968 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of 
Judicature at Hyderabad in Writ Petitions Nos. 2956, 1798, 1931, 
2313, 3372, 3740, 3964, 3956 and 4088 of 1968 and Civil 
Appeal No. 1518 of 1970. 
On <mpeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated 
March 31, 1970, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court i~ Writ 
Petition No. 3501 of 1968 and Appeal by certificate agamst the 
judgment and order dated August 25, 1970 of ~he ~dhra ,P_ra-
desh High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad m Wnt Petitton 
No. 4034 of 1970. 
B. V. Subramanyam and G. Narayana Rao for the appellants 
(in CA Nos. 323/69 and 1312/69). 
G. Narayana Rao, for the appellants (in all the appeals). 
P. Basi Reddy and B. Parthasarathy, for the ;espoHdents (in 
C. As Nos. 323, 332, 1312, 1174/69.) 
P. Basi Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for the respondent, (In C.A. 
No. 1518/70). 
P. Basi Reddy and P. Parameshwara Rao, for the respondent 
(In C.A. Nos. 2117/70). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered 1zy 
Beg, J. In these appeals by Certificate only one question of 
law has been argued. It may be formulated as follows : 
"Is any part of the provision of Item 6 of Schedule III of the 
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (6 of 1957) (hereinafter 
referred to as 'the Act') relating to the 'point of levy' void for 
contravening Section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ?" 
Each of the appellants before us is a miller and one of a large 
number of. such millers who had applied to 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.