MADRAS MICA ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions, one filed by a registered association, the Madras Mica Association, Gudur, represented by V. Dasaratha Rami Reddy and the other by a member of the said association, Dasaratha Rami Reddy, himself in his individual capacity calling in question the legality, constitutionality and validity of the Amendment Act 26 of 1961, seek for issue of a writ of mandamus to the State Government, the Commercial Tax Officer, Nellore, and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Gudur, directing them to forbear from giving effect to the provisions of the Second Amendment Act (26 of 1961) read with sections 7 (b) and 5 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act so far as they are applicable to the levy and collection of sales tax on mica and to refund the tax already collected under the said provisions.

(2.) CURIOUSLY enough notwithstanding that a direction is sought against collection of tax and also for refund of the tax already collected, these petitions do not specify the assessments made against the particular members of the association, the tax sought to be collected from them and the extent of tax which they claim back as levied and collected without authority of law. The averments in the petitions by and large, are confined to the constitutionality and invalidity of certain provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act as amended in 1961. The gravamen of the charge is that the second amendment introduced by the Amending Act 26 of 1961 is invalid for want of the President's assent; and read with section 7 (b) and section 5 of the principal Act it contravenes the constitutional provisions, amongst others, contained in Part XIII and in articles 13, 14, 19 and 286.

(3.) THESE , in short, are the main grounds on the basis of which the petitioners contend that the amending Act read with sections 5 and 7 of the principal Act is unconstitutional and void. They therefore request for a writ of mandamus for the reliefs already mentioned. The respondents seriously contest the constitutional position as set up by the petitioners. They aver that, whereas the principal Act had subjected mica to a single point levy at the point of first purchase in the State, the Second Amendment Act of 1961 has subjected it to tax at the point of purchase by the last dealer, who buys in the State, at the rate of Rs. 0. 03 p. in the rupee under section 5 (2) (b) read with the Second Schedule. Section 7 of the principal Act provides for the stage of levy of taxes in respect of imported and exported goods. In the case of mica exported out of the State and which is subjected to tax only at the point of purchase, the series of purchases are to be deemed to conclude at the stage of purchase effected immediately before the export of mica. However the export sale, that is the last sale immediately occasioning the export of mica, is not sought to be taxed by the impugned Act. Certainly the tax on purchase by the last dealer in the State is not prohibited. By virtue of the imposition of tax on mica at the point of last purchase within the State, the guarantee of freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India is not in any way affected. Article 304 empowers the Legislature of a State to impose on goods imported from other States any tax to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that State are subjected to. So long as the requirements of article 286 are satisfied the State law levying tax on goods produced within the State is beyond the reach of article 301. The contention of the respondents further is that inasmuch as the export sale is not sought to be taxed, it cannot be said that the provisions in question trench upon the domain of foreign trade and commerce. Even otherwise, the impugned law is one contemplated by entry 54 of List II. The discrimination alleged is not true. According to section 5 (2) (b) read with Schedule II in relation to mica the last dealer who actually purchased in the State is liable to tax irrespective of the question whether the goods are imported from other States or produced or manufactured in this State. This question of receiving assent from the President does not arise as under article 200 there was no obligation cast on the Governor to withhold the assent and reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President. The pleas based on the violation of article 19 (1) (g) and article 14 of the Constitution are without foundation. So also is the plea that the impugned legislation is in respect of duties and as such must be within the exclusive domain of the Parliament.