T. G. VENKATARAMAN ETC v. STATE OF MADRAS & Anr.

Counsel for the appellants have in these appeals urged first two grounds and have in addition submitted that in levying tax on turnover from sale of "cane jaggery" legislative power has been coloura bly exercised. The argument that there was excessive deleg~tion t(l the executive of the legislative power was abandoned before this Court, because the State of Madras has enackd Act II of 1968 authorising levy of tax on sale of jaggery by amending Sch. III to Madras Act 1 of 1959. Turnover from sal!e of jaggery-cane or palm-was subject to tax under s. 3(1) of the Madras Act IX of 1939 at three pies per rupee. By G.O. 651 dated February 28, 1955 and G.O. 2780 dated September 7, 1955 all jaggery"' effected through Co-<iperative Societies and the Palm Gur Fede ration were exempt ftom tax. By another G.O. No. 1605 dated April 19, 1956, all transactions of sale in "palm jaggery" were exempted from sales tax with effect from April l, 1956. Transac tions of sale in "can~ jaggery" therefore contim•ed remain liable to tax whereas 'sales of "palm jaggery" enjoyed the benefit of exemption from tax. sales of "palm After the judgment of this Court in The Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. v. Th~ State of Bihar & Others(') the Parlia ment amended Art. 286 and entry 54 in List TI of the Seventh Schedule and added a new Entry 92A in List I in the Seventh In Schedule by the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act. exercise of the pow.et under Entry 92A List I the Parliament enacted the Central Sales Tax Act 74 of1956. By Ch. N of that Act the power reserved under the amended Art. 286 cl. (3) was exercised by the Parliament, and certain classes of goods were declared to be of "sl)ecial importance in trade or commerce". By s. 15 !certain modifications were declared in State Acts relating to the levy of taxes on sales and purchases of declared goods. However in the list of goods of "special impor-, lance in inter-State trade or commerce" gur or jaggery was when· the Act was enacted ,mot included. inter-State The Parlfament then enacted the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (Act 58 of 1957). Section 3 of jhat Act authorised the levy and collection of additional duties Ht respect of several classes of goods includ ing "sugar". By s. 4 'jt was provided that during each financial year, there shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India: (!) [19551 2 S.C.R. 603c '618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1970] I S.C.R ·16 the States in accordance with the provisions of second ~chcdule, such sums, representing a part of the net proceeds of ,!he additional duties levied and collected during that financial year, as are specified in that Schedule. It was enacted by the pro viso to cl. (2) of the Schedule that if during that financial year there is levied and collected in any State specified in the Table a ta'X ·on the sale or purchase of sugar by or under any law of that State, no sums shall be payable to that State under sub-cl. (ii) or sub-cl. (iii) of d. (b) in respect of that financial year, unless the Central Government by special order otherwise directs. The expression 'sugar' was defined in s. 2(c) as having the same meaning as it has in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Governor of Madras issued Ordinance 1 of 1957 directing that transactions of sale of "cane jaggery" be liable to a single point tax at 5 per cent. with effect from April 1, 1957. By virtue of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as amended by Act 31 of 1958 "sugar" as defined in Item No. 8 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was declared a commodity essential to the life of the community and tax could thereafter be levied on "sugar" at the rate of 2 per cent. only. But in view of the definition contained in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, there was some doubt whether the expression 'sugar' included Rur. The State of Madras being "cane apparently of the opinion that jaggery" were subject to the provisions of the Additional Excise Act 58 of 1957. issued on April 15, 1958, G.0. No. 1457 exempting all sales of "cane jaggery" from tax with effect from April I. 1958. Transactions of sale of "palm jaggery" were therefore exempt partially from sales tax from February 28. 1955 and wholly from April I, 1956, and transactions of sale of "cane ja~gery" were exempt from tax from April 1, 1958. jaggery" "palm The State Legislature enacted the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1 of 1959 with effect from April 1, !959. Bys. 3 every than Rs. 10,000 be dealer whose total turnover was not less came Jia ble to pay tax for each year at the rate of 2 per cent. of his taxable turnover. By s. 8 it was provided that sub1cct to such .restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed, a dealer who deals .. in goods specified in the Third Schedule shall not be liable to pay anv tax under the Act in respect of such goods. Item 5 in the Th.ird Schedule was "sugar including jaggery and gur." Section 17 of that Act authorised the State Government by notification to exempt or to make reduction in rate 'in respect of any tax payable under the Act on the sale or purchase of any special goods or class of goods at all points or specified points in respect of sales by successive dealers or by any specified class of dealers in respect of the whole or any part of their ttrmover. By s. 59 (1) of the Act the State Government was · authorised by notification, to alter, add or cancel any of the Schedules. A B c D E F G H ... A B c D E F G H VENKATRAMAN v. MADRAS (Shah, J.) 619' On April 1, 1959 transactions of sale of "sugar including jaggery and gur" were. exempt from liability to pay tax under !he Madras General Sales Tax Act 1 of 1959. The exempUon applied to all transactions of sale of "'cane jaggery" and "palm jaggery". On September 10, 1965 the Government of Ind!~ advised the State Government that "jaggery" was not included in the expression 'sugar' in the Additional Duties of Excise Act 58 of 1957. The State of Madras in exercise of the power under sub-s. ( 1) of s. 59 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, issued G.0. 2261 dated December 30, 1967, that: "In the said (Third) Schedule in item 5, for . the word 'including' the words 'but not including' shall ·be substituted." The State simultaneously issued another notification that : "In exercise of powers conferred by section 17 ( 1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, Governor of Madras granted exemption in respect of sales of palm tax payable under the Act on all jaggery." Jn consequence of the two notifications turnover from transac-· tions of sale of "cqne jaggery" which was till then exempt from tax became liable to tax under s. 3 of the Madras Act 1 of 1959 whereas sale of "palm jaggery" remained exempt from Eabi!ity to pay sales tax. In support of the plea that the State had practised unlawful' jaggery" and "cane discrimination between sales of· "palm iaggery" it was urged that "cane jaggery" and "palm jaggery" which were identic?l commodities and were similarly treated under the successive Sales Tax Acts of the State for many years past were v:ithout any rational nexus with the object sought to be served by the Ma<lras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, differently treated and on that account the notification issued under s. 59 sub-s. ( 1) which modifies the Third Schedule is ultra vires. It may be recalled that the notification under s. 59 (1) which was issued in exercise of executive authority has received legis lative sanction by Madras Act 2 of 1968. Amendment in Third Schedule now flows from the exercise of legislative autho rity and not executive authority. Since s. 8 read with the Third Schedule as amended by Madras Act 2 of 1968 exempts only "sugar" from liability to tax, sales of jaggery, cane and palm, now fall within the charg ing section. But the Government of Madras have in. exercise of power under s. 17 bf Act 1 of 1959 exempted transactioPs of sale of "palm jaggery" from tax. It is true that .between April 1. 620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1970] I S.C.R transactions of sale of "cane A 1958 and October 31. 1967 jaggcry" and ··palm jaggcry" were exempt from liability to pay sales tax under the ~adras General Sales Tax Acts of 1939 and 1959, but it cannot be inferred therefrom that the Legislature treated ··palm jaggery" and "cane jaggery" as the "same commo dity." For nearly three years before April l. 1958 sales of "palm jaggery" were exempt from tax but sales of "cane aggcry" were B not. record ciearly a!Iidavit The evidence 0n the "cane jaggcry" and "palm jaggcry·· are commercially different commo dities. "Cane jaggery" is produced from the juice of sugarcane; "palm jaggcry" is produced from the juice uf the palm tree. Mr. Raghupathy, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Madras C (Commercial Taxes) has stated in his "palm jaggery" industry comes under the purvic" of Kh2di and Village Industries Board and is one of the cottage industries which gives employ~1ent mainly to poor tappers. 'lbc tappers. accocding Mr. Raµhupathy. collect "nccra" from palm and other trees and prepare jaggcry by the traditional method of boiling "neera" in D their huts and produce jaggery without the aid of any machinery. Production of "i:;alm jaggcry" in the State compared to "cane ja)l:gery" is small. The price of "palm jaggery" and "cane ja~gery•· differ widely and apparently "palm jaggery" and "cane jaggery" arc consumed by different sections of the commm1ity. It is clear that the method of production of "palm jaggery" and "cane jaggery" are different; they reach the consumers through different E channels of distribution: the prices at which they are sold differ and they ar.~ consumed hv different sections of the community. In a recent judgment N. Venugopa/a Ral'i Varma Rajah v. Union of lndia and Another(') this Coun ob; erved: " .... Tax laws are aimed at dealing with complex adjustment problems of infinite variety necessitating of several disparate elements. The Courts accordingly admit, subject to adherence to the fundamental princi- ples of the doctrine of equality, a larger play to legis- lative discretion in the matter of classification. The power to classify may be exercised so as to adjust the system of taxation in all proper and reasonable ways : the Legislature may select persons, properties, transc- tions and objects and apply different methods reason- even rates for tax, if the Legislatures docs so ably. rational, the Legislature is free to choose objects of taxation, impose different rates, exempt c]a">Ses of property from taxation, subject different classes of property to the classification . If . . . . (I) [1969) 1 S.CR. 827. F G H A B c D E F G VENKATARAMAN V. MADRAS (Shah, J.) 621 in different ways and adopt different modes of assess ment. A taxing statute may contravene Article 14 of the Constitution if it seeks to impose on the same class of property, persons, transactions or occupations similarly situate; incidence of taxation, which leads to obvious inequality." It was also said by the Court that : "It is for the Legislature to determine the objects on which tax shall be levied, and the rates thereof. The Courts will not strike down an Act as denying equal protection merely because other objects could have been, but are not, taxed by the Legislature." We are accordingly of the view that "cane jaggery" and "palm jaggery" are not commodities of the same class, and any event in imposing liability to tax on transactions of sale of "cane jaggery" and exempting "palm jaggery", no unlawful dis crimination denying the guarantee of equal protection was practised. · No serious argument was advanced in support of the plea · ~hat ·the freedom pf trade and commerce guaranteed by Part XIII of the Constitution is infringed by the imposition of tax on "cane jaggery". llreedom of trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed by Art. 301 of the Constitution is protected against taxing statutes as well as other statutes, but by imposition of tax on transactions of sale of "cane jaggery" no restriction on the freedom of trade 6r commerce or in the course of trade with or within the State is imposed. The tax imposed on transactions of sale of "cane jaggery" does not affect the freedom of trade with :in the meaning of; Art. 301. As observed by this Court in The State of Madras v. N. K. Nataraja Mudaliar( 1 ) "a tax may in certain cases directly and immediately restrict or 'hamper free flow of trade, but every imposition of tax does not do so." There is no substance in the contention that the Act which impose tax on "cane ia1t1!ery" and the notification which exempts "palm jaggery" from liability to tax imposes a colourable exercise of authority. If the. Lel!islature has the power to impose the tax, its authority is not' open to challenge on a plea of colonrable exercise of power! K. C. Gajapati Naravan Deo & Others v. The State of Oriss~(•). There will be one hearing fee. G.C. (I) [196Rl 3 S.C.R. 829. (2) [1954) S.C.R. I. Appeals dismissed. ,