BRUSHWARE LIMITED Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated July 17, 1979 and July 16, 1980, refusing to grant remission of tax and interest to the petitioner and against the recovery of certain payment of disputed tax and interest thereon. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is a limited liability company engaged in the manufacturing and sale of brushes. The export to foreign countries of brushes was channelised through the State Trading Corporation and the petitioner was exporting brushes to U. S. S. R. and other foreign countries through the S. T. C. for many years. The S. T. C. secured orders from foreign buyers for supply of certain quantity and quality of brushes and a tripartite contract was said to have been entered into between S. T. C. , the foreign buyers and the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon manufactured goods of the aforesaid requirement which were put on board the ships at various ports by the petitioner, and the bill of landing was prepared by the shippers showing the petition as the consignor, "account S. T. C. " The payment was received by the petitioner through the S. T. C. Another agreement containing identical terms was entered into between the petitioner and the S. T. C. True copy of the tripartite agreement and the specimen copy of the bill of lading are annexures 1 and 1-A to the writ petition. It is alleged in para 4 of the petition that the export sales have all along been considered by the sales tax authorities and by the State of U. P. as exempt from tax under article 286 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India as being sales in the course of export. However, the Supreme Court in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa [1975] 36 STC 136 held that it is only the last sales between S. T. C. and foreign buyers which is exempt from tax and not any sale preceding such sales by local dealers to the S. T. C. Respondent No. 1 relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to exemption from tax. He accordingly assessed the petitioner under section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act treating the sales to be inter-State sale vide annexures 2a, 2b, 2c to the writ petition. The petitioner appealed against the order but the appeal for the assessment year 1971-72 was rejected by the Additional Judge (Revision) and the appeal of the remaining two years was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, vide annexures 3a and 3b to the petition. Since the authorities had held that the petitioner's case was covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Serajuddin's case [1975] 36 STC 136 the petitioner applied for remission of tax, interest and penalties vide representation dated May 14, 1977 (annexure 4 to the petition ). However by order dated July 17, 1979 the petitioner's representation for remission of tax, etc. , was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide annexure 5. The petitioner applied again for remission to the Commissioner and Secretary, Institutional Finance, U. P. , on August 6, 1979 and on January 2, 1980 and also on April 20, 1980. These representations were also rejected by order dated July 16, 1980, vide annexure 7 to the petition. Thereupon the respondent issued recovery certificate against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the shoe dealers of Agra were granted exemption vide para 10 of the petition, the petitioner should also be granted exemption otherwise article 14 of the Constitution of India will be violated. We are not in agreement with this submission. Merely because shoe dealers were granted remission it does not mean that dealers of other commodities must also be granted remission. The petitioner manufactures and sells brushes and not shoes. In our opinion article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked in this case. Merely because one industry has been granted certain concession for remission it does not mean that the same benefit must be granted to all the industries. In fact, para 10 of the petition refers to the notification dated April 12, 1977, wherein it is mentioned that the remission was being granted because of the heavy burden of tax liability on the Agra shoe industries which it was unable to bear. There is nothing to show that the Government found that the brush industry is also unable to bear the tax liability. Moreover, it is settled law that in tax matters greater latitude is given to the Government and it cannot be said that merely because benefit was given to one industry it must be given to others also. Thus, there is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated March 2, 1981, is hereby vacated. Petition dismissed. .