LexSRI DOKI CHINA GURUVULU SON & CO. AND ANR. versus GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D SRI DOKI CHINA GURUVULU SON & CO. AND ANR. v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. DECEMBER 7, 1989 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND B:C. RAY, JJ.] Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1957 (As amended by Act 19 of 1986): First Schedule Item 170/Second Schedule Item 14-Tamarind obtained from outside the State-Taxation of-At a stage different from tamarind produced in the State-Whether results in double taxation- Whether discriminatory and violative of Articles 304(a) and 14 of the Constitution. Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 304: State sales tax law--Taxing commodity obtained from outside the State at a stage diffe- rent from commodity produced in the State-Whether discriminatory and unconstitutional. Under item 14 of Second·Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 tamarind was subjected to sales tax at the point of first purchase in the State irrespective of whether it was purchased within the State or outside the State. However, by virtue of an amend- ment to the Act by Act 19 of 1986 tamarind which is purchased within E the State was retained in Second Schedule, while tamarind purchased outside the State was transferred to First Schedule as item 170, making it taxable at the same rate at the point of first sale in the State. The appellants had purchased tamarind from the State of Orissa paying tax there and incurred expenditure in bringing it to Andhra F Pradesh for sale. They challenged the said amendment modifying the point of taxability as discriminatory between tamarind produced and purchased within the State and the tamarind produced and purchased outside the State and as such, violative of Articles 304(a) and 14 of the Constitution. The submission was that imported tamarind which had suffered tax at the first sale point will again be taxed at the purchase G point when purchased within the State, which would amount to double taxation, and that tax in case of imported tamarind would be more because its price will include freight charges and other State taxes. H The High Court found that there was no discrimination. Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court, 422 . • D.C. GURUVULU v. GOVT. OF. A.P . 423 HELD: When a taxing State is not imposing rates of tax on imported goods different from rates of tax on goods manufactured or produced, Article 304 of the Constitution has no application. In the instant case, both tamarind purchased within, and outside, the State was taxed uniformly. There was. therefore, no infraction of clause (a) of Article 304 '.'fthe Constitution. [429D-E; 426A; 425G-H] Rattan Lal & Co. & Anr. v. The Assessing Authority & Anr., [1969] 2 SCR 544, applied. Firm A. T.B. Mehtao Majid & Co. v. The State of Madras, 14 STC 355 and Indian Cement Ltd. & Ors. v. State of /,ndhra Pradesh & Ors., 69 STC 305, distinguished. It may be that when the rate is applied the resulting tax in respect of imported tamarind may he somewhat higher because its price will include freight charges and other State taxes. But that cannot be said to be the effect of what law has amended. Tamarind will he imported only when it can be sold in the market at the same price as the tamarind produced within the State. Only when after hearing the other State taxes and freight charges, if it is able to compete with the locally pro- duced tamarind it will normally be imported from outside the State. If there is any difference in prices because of market conditions and other factors, that cannot be said to be due to discrimination prohibited by clause (a) of Article 304. [429E; 427D-E] Mis Associated Tanners, Vizianagaram, A.P. v. C. T.O., Viziana- garam, A.P. & Ors., [1986] 2 SCC 479, referred to. Weston Electroniks & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., [1988] 3 A B c D E SCR 768, distinguished. F Once the imported tamarind is taxed at the first sale point under the First Schedule there is no occasion for taxing it over again at the sale point under the Second Schedule. The idea of both the Schedules is to tax only at one point, though the point of taxability is different in both the cases. In case of tamarind purchased within the State, i.e., pro- G duced within the State, the tax is levied at the point of first purchase under the Second Schedule, and in case of imported tamarind i.e., purchased outside the State, the tax is levied at the point of first sale in the State under the First Schedule. It could not therefore, be sa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.