SADIQ BAKERY ETC. versus STATE OF A.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 7 · Decided: 24-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

i 
' y 
\. 
SADIQ BAKERY ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 24, 1987 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 19(1)(b)-Sales 
Tax-Different rates for bread and biscuits-A. P. Sales Tax Act, 1952 
Schedule I Item Nos. 117 and 129-Validity of. 
Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1957: Schedule I Item Nos. I I7 C 
& 129-Bread and biscuits-Imposition of sales tax at different rates, 
whether constitutionally valid and legal. 
Statutory Interpretation: Economic wisdom of a tax or lack of 
it-Within the exclusive domain of the legislature-Court to see that 
capacity to pay tax increases by and large with increase of receipts. 
D 
In a batch of Writ Petitions filed in this Court the petitioners 
challenged the imposition of sales tax and surcharge on bread, rusk 
and bnn under the A.P. Sales Tax Act, 1957 as illegal, contending that 
bread and biscuits belonged to one homogeneous class but had been 
treated differently for purposes of taxation under Schedule I, Item E 
No. 117 and Item No. 129of1the Act, that the purchasers and sellers of 
bread and biscuits had been differently taxed, and that the multiple 
point tax violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 
Dismissing the writ peti1tions, 
HELD: 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 is whether there is rationality in that behalf 
of the legislature that capacity to pay the tax increased by and large 
with the increase of receipts. From any point of view, there is rationa-
F 
lity in this proposition. It is sound commonsense and is in consonance G 
with social justice. Therefore, the challenge to the imposition, under 
Article 14 as well as Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not sus-
tainable. [9D-F] 
State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Nalla Raja Reddy & Ors., 
[1967] 3 SCR 28; New Menek Chowk Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. 
7 
H 
I 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 
Ltd. and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad 
A and Others., [1967] 2 SCR 679; Annapurna Biscuit (Mfg.) Co. and 
Another v. The State of U.P. and Another, [1975] 35 S.T.C 127 and 
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Another Etc. v. State of Bihar and 
Others, [1983] SCR 130, referred to. 
B 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 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 and 559-560/83. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
B. Kanta Rao for the Petitioners. 
c 
C. Seetharamiah, T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. Vrinda Grover, Ch. 
Badri Nath, A.K. Sanghi, G.S. Chatterjee P.N. Mishra, A.V. 
Rangam, Pramod Swarup, D. Goburdhan and M.N. Shroff for the 
Respondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. 
W.P. Nos: 5117/81, 3656-84/82, 5241-5260/83. & 7340/81 
E 
These four batches of Writ Petitions challenge the ill)position 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 diffe-
rently treated for taxation under Schedule I, Item No. 117 and 
Schedule I, Item No. 129 of the said Act. In other words, the conten-
F 
tion 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:-
G 
State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Na/la 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 th~ Allahabad High Court in Annapurna Biscuit ( MfK.) 
H Co. and Another v. The State of U.P. and Another, [1975] 35 S.T.C. 
~ 
~ 
r 
~
y 
'I 
' 
. '-(. 
-
i 
)-· 
,( 
J .. 
SAD!Q BAKERY ETC. v. STATE OF A.P. [MUKHARJI, J.) 
9 
127 does not deal with this contention at all. 
The second contention sought to be raised was that the multiple 
point tax violates Article 19( l)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioners 
being Bakeries, this contention is not open to the petitioners. 
The third contention sought to be raised was that excise
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.