JAIPUR HOSIERY MILLS (P) LTD., JAIPUR versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS.

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 27-04-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

396 
JAIPUR HOSIERY MILLS (P) LTD., JAIPUR' 
v. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS. 
April 27, 1970 
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14-R<tjasthan Sales Tax Act 1950 
s. 4(2)-Exemption granted by notification to some garments-Not ex-
tended·- to hosiery articles-!/ violates Art. 14. 
On January 31, 1958, a notification was issued by the State Govern-
ment under s. 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1950 exempting from 
tax the sale of any garment the value <if which did not exceed Rs. 4. In 
a writ petition filed by a manufacturer of vests and underwears 
(hosiery 
articles) the High Court held that the notification covered hosiery articles 
also. 
On March 26, 1962, the State Government issued another notifica-
tion under s. 4(2) of the Act exempting from tax the sale of any garment 
the value of which did not exceed Rs. 4 but the exemption was not made 
applicable to 'hosiery products and hats of all kinds'. 
The appellants who 
were doing business ill vests and underwears of knitted 'fabric challenged 
in writ petitions the notifications on the ground that it violated Art. 14 
.$L!!'t .92.!'i'itl!ti'?n.'. . The High C~urt. \l!smissed lb~ petiticms and held 
vests and underwears came under hc~:~ry products'. 
· 
· 
!n appeal to this Court, 
.· . Hfiti'.l i i 1) A taxing status can be challenged on the gr6tirid 6f in• 
ftingemerit of Art 14, but since the Legislature possesses a large freedom 
Of classification in matters of taxation, it can exercise wide discretion in 
selecting persons or objects which will be taxed, and, a statute is not open 
to attack on the mere ground that it taxes some persons or objects and 
not others. It must be shown that within the range of its selection the 
law operates unequally, 
Therefore, it is not for the 
Court to decide 
whether the policy of exempting articles made from woven 
cloth was 
justified or that hosiery articles should also be given the same exeonption. 
. 
[397 G-H; 398 Al 
(2) The High Court ought not to have gone into the matter whether 
vests and underwears are hosiery products as it 
was for the 
assessing 
authorities to decide, in each case, whether the taxed goods were hosiery 
products. f398 F-G] 
C1v1L. APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : 
Civil Appeals Nos. 77 to 
84 of 1967. 
Appeals from the judgment a_nd order dated November 22, 
1966 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Writs Nos. 81 and 
590 of 1965 and 9, 201, 217, 511, 512 and 513 of 1966. 
H. R. Gokhale, Bishamber Lal and N. K. Puri, for the appel-
lants. 
A. K. Sen and K. B. Mehta, for the respondents. 
c 
D 
F 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
Grover, J. 
The3e eight appeals by certificate arise out of a 
common judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dismising the 
JAIPUR HOSIERY MILLS v. RAJASTHAN (Grover, /.) 
397' 
A 
petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed- by the appel-
lants. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The appellants carry on the business, interalia, of manufac-
ture and sale of vests and underwears 
(Baniyans and 
Chaddiesl out of knitted fabric. On January 31, 1958 a 
notification was issued by the State 
Government 
under 
s. 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1950, hereinafter called 
the "Act", exempting from tax the sale of any. garment whether 
prepared within or imported from outside Rajasthan the value 
of which did not exceed Rs. 4/- in single piece. In spite of the 
aforesaid notification the authorities did not exempt from pay-
ment of sales tax the sale of vests and underwears the value of 
which did not exceed Rs. 4/- in single piece. 
The notification 
was interpreted to mean that the goods manufactured by 
the 
appellants w~re not garments within its meaning. Mis Pareek 
·Hosiery Products, Jaipur, took the matter to the High Court by 
way of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution which 
was allowed and it was held ·that the vests and underwears were 
covered by the said notification. On March 26, 1962 the State 
of Rajasthan issued another notification 
in 
exercise of 
the 
powers under s. 4(2) of the Act by which the sale of garments 
whether p·repared within or imported from outside 
Rajasthan 
the value of which did not exceed Rs. 4/- in a single piece were 
exempted from payment .of sales tax .but this exemption exclud• 
ed "hosiery products and hats of all kinds." 
The 
appellants 
were subjected to sales tax in respect of sales of vests and under-
wears of knitted fabric for the periods of

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