KAMAL JAI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is projected against the judgment and order dated 4.6.99 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 2841 of 1993.

(2.) The appellant/writ petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/S Manika Enteiprise having its place of business at T.R. Phukan Road, Fancy Bazar. Guwahati. The appellant/ petitioner, it is stated, is engaged in the business in the Misri (Sugar Candy) and Makhana (whole-gram coated with sugan). The appellant/petitioner's grievance, in a nutshell, is that while sugar is an exempted item contained in Schedule-I of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, sugar candy in which the appellant/petitioner is carrying on business, has not been conferred the benefit of exemption though sugar candy is nothing but sugar, the only difference between the two being in the process of manufacture The learned Single Judge has negated the claim of the petitioner on the ground that it is within the power and competence of the State Legislature to confer and deny the benefit of exemption from payment of sales tax and the question of conferment and denial of exemption from payment of tax lies in the realm of policy. The appellant/writ petitioner, it has been held by the learned Single Judge, has failed to make out any case of infringement of any of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner/appellant and/or any constitutional right. On the basis of the said conclusion, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 4.6.99. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. N.N. Saikia, learned senior counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has formulated three principal grounds of challenge as against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.6.99. Mr. Saikia contends that sugar and sugar candy are one and the same and when the benefit of exemption has been conferred on sugar, the item in question namely, sugar candy cannot be excluded from such benefit. Mr. Saikia further contends that sugar is one of the "declared goods" under Section 14 read with Section 2 (c) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and, therefore, it is beyond the competence of the State legislature, by virtue of Section 15 of the Central Sales tax Act. 1956. to impose any tax on the sale or purchase of sugar at a rate exceeding 4%. Mr. Saikia contends that in the instant case, sugar candy is being taxed at the rate of 8% and, therefore, the levy is contrary to the provisions of the Cental Act. Mr. Saikia further contends that Section 2(11) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 defines "declared goods" in the same terms as defined in Section 14 read with Section 2(c) of the Central Act. The last contention of Mr. Saikia is that sugar is an item to which the provisions of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 are applicable and by virtue of the provisions of the said Act, the levy under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 on sugar candy is void and unaudiorised calling for interference by this court.