STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GHASIRAM MANGLLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave are from a judgment of the Rajasthan High court holding that the assessment of sales tax on "bardana" imported into the State in the hands of the first importer under a notification, dated August 11, 1959 issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 4 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, hereinafter called the "act" was invalid and that the imposition of penalty in respect of the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 was also bad and illegal.

(2.) The respondent is a partnership firm carrying on the business of commission agent for the sale of gunny bags manufactured from jute. The following notification was issued by the government under Section 4 (2) of the Act on August 11, 1959:

(3.) The respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High court as the assessing authority had made an assessment in respect of the years 1963-64 and 1964-65 holding that the respondent was liable to pay tax on the sale of gunny bags imported by it from outside Rajasthan. In addition a penalty of Rs. 25,000. 00 had been imposed for the first year and Rs. 17,000. 00 for the second year for not filing the return in time. According to the respondent the levy of sales tax on imported "bardana" contravened the provisions of Article 301 of the Constitution and suffered from the vice of discrimination. The High court referred to the meaning of "bardana" 'which is a term of Hindi language as given in Nalanda Vishal Shabad Sagar-a Hindi dictionary-and held that this term did not mean only gunny bags made of jute but it also covered all kinds of containers. Although other types of 'bardana' were being manufactured. The position, therefore, was that while imported Bardana had been subjected to sales tax "on the first point at the hands of the importer" no such tax had been levied on the "bardana" old or new, produced or manufactured in Rajasthan. For this reason Article 304 (a) of the Constitution could be of no avail to the State and there was a clear contravention of Article 301. This is what the High court finally said ;