RAVATMAL MOHANLAL Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS entry 43 (which is now entry 44) in the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, providing for a single point sales tax under Section 5 (2) (a) on milk foods, powder and baby milk foods, but excluding fresh milk, discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? This is the question that is canvassed in this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is a dealer in some commodities including milk powder. Sales tax is sought to be imposed on his sales of milk powder by virtue of the then entry 43 in Schedule I at a single point. The petitioner seeks a certiorari quashing this assessment order of the Principal Commercial Tax Officer, Second Circle, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, for the assessment year 1972-73 to the extent that it imposes sales tax on the sales of milk powder. The argument of Sri Chennakesava Rao for the petitioner is this : The entry excludes fresh milk from taxation. In fact, the Government has issued G. O. Ms. No, 1091 dated 10th June, 1957, exempting milk from sales tax. But the entry makes milk foods, powder and baby milk foods exigible to sales tax at single point under Section 5 (2) (a ). There is no difference whatever between fresh milk and milk powder. If milk powder is mixed with water, it becomes milk. Likewise, milk foods also. In chemical substance also, there is no difference between milk powder and milk that is made of milk powder and fresh milk. While excluding fresh milk from taxation, the entry makes milk powder in foods liable to tax, though that is also essentially of the nature of milk. This is highly discriminatory and directly comes within the purview of Article 14. So, the entry itself is bad and no sales tax can be levied on the sales of milk powder.

(3.) THE respondent in his counter avers that it is not correct to state that milk and milk powder are one and the same. They are in different forms and are altogether different commodities used for different purposes. They cannot be interchanged for each other. It is further pointed out in the counter affidavit, that even according to the petitioner, the milk powder is condensed milk obtained by physical and chemical process and, therefore, they are not the same commodities. Even condensed milk is not exempt, as only fresh milk is exempt. Thus, the respondent seeks to justify the classification made by the entry. He further submits that the legislature has got ample and wide powers to choose any commodities or goods for taxation or for exemption from taxation. So long as there is no discrimination among the dealers similarly situated, the imposition of tax cannot be questioned on the ground of hostile discrimination. G. O. Ms. No. 1091 is not applicable to the petitioner.