KERALA HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION STATE OF TAMIL NADU HOTEL ARATHY VADAKKANCHERRY Vs. STATE OF KERALA:SANGU CHAKRA HOTELS PRIVATE LTD:STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil appeals and the connected writ petition involve decision of the substantially common question arising out of the conflicting decisions of the High Courts of Kerala and Madras regarding constitutional validity of similar provisions in the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu which result in imposition of sales tax in the two States on cooked food sold to the affluent in the luxury hotels while exempting the same from sales tax in the modest eating houses patronised by the lesser mortals. In both these States the exigibility to sales tax of cooked food sold only in luxury hotels was challenged on the ground that it amounted to hostile discrimination. The Kerala High Court rejected the challenge while the Madras High Court has upheld it. This has led to filing of Civil Appeals Nos. 912-20 of 1988 against the Kerala High Court's decision and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 281 of 1988 under Art. 32 of the Constitution by the unsuccessful hoteliers of Kerala while Civil Appeals Nos. 4460-80 of 1985 are by the State of Tamil Nadu against the Madras High Court's decision. THESE conflicting decisions of the two High Courts giving rise to these matters are: Sangu Chakra Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1985) 60 STC 125: (1986 Tax LR 2335) (Mad) and Hotel Elite v. State of Kerala, (1988) 69 STC 119 (Ker).

(2.) SHORN of rhetoric and bereft of the legal embroidery which invariably constitute bulk of the armoury of constitutional attack on such a statutory provision and removing the gloss of hypertechnicality from the arguments, the real question is: Whether imposition of sales tax on the sale of cooked food in the more costly eating places alone violates the guarantee of equality enshrined in the Constitution of our 'Socialist' Republic in view of the fact that cooked food sold in the modest eating places catering to the needs of the common man is not similarly taxed ? The challenge is that this can be done only by taxing them equally but not otherwise. In other words, the contention is that this tax burden which is ultimately borne by the consumers of cooked food must be shared equally by all consumers and it cannot be placed only on the more affluent in the society who obviously are the ones frequenting the costlier eating houses, sale of cooked food wherein is taxed, the tax not being on the income or status of the consumer but on the sale of food for consumption. In substance the question is: Is this the kind of equality envisaged and guaranteed in our Constitution ?

(3.) THE preamble to the Constitution contains the solemn resolve to secure to all its citizens, inter alia, economic and social justice along with equality of status and opportunity. THE expression 'socialist' was intentionally introduced in the preamble by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 with the principal aim of eliminating inequality in income and status and standards of life. THE emphasis on economic equality in our socialist welfare society has to pervade all interpretations made in the context of any challenge based on hostile discrimination. It is on the altar of this vibrant concept in our dynamic constitution that the attack based on hostile discrimination in the present case must be tested when the legislature intended to rest content with placing the tax burden only on the haves excluding the have-nots from the tax net for satisfying the tax need from this source. THE reasonableness of classification must be examined on this basis when the object of the taxing provision is not to tax sale of all cooked food and thereby tax everyone but to be satisfied with the revenue raised by taxing only the sale of costlier food consumed by those who can bear the tax burden.