ABDUL KARIM THAKUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BESIDES section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, SRO No. 267 issued by the Government on 15th May, 1978, and the notices served upon the petitioners pursuant to it, to either submit their accounts for determining their liability to pay sales tax, or to pay the sales tax already levied by the respondents, have been assailed in all these petitions which raise common questions of law. These are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioners in all these petitions are manufacturers of bricks, some of whom also manufacture tiles. They are registered as small-scale manufacturing units with the Directorate of Industries. By virtue of entry No. 12 under the general head "cement, CERAMIC AND STONE INDUSTRIES" of annexure I to SRO No. 468 issued by the Government on 1st August, 1977, in exercise of its powers under section 5 of the Act, P. C. C. poles tiles, bricks, and hollow blocks were exempted from payment of sales tax. This SRO was to take effect on 5th July, 1968, and was to remain in force till 31st March, 1977.

(3.) THE respondents' case, however, is that section 5 cannot be discriminatory in nature, merely because it gives a discretion to the Government in selecting persons or objects it will exempt from payment of tax, for, in taxing statutes, the legislature has wide powers of classification of such person or objects. This classification is a matter of details and the power to work these details has to be delegated to the Government. To tax something, it is not necessary to tax everything. Sections 4 and 5 being inextricably interlinked, and constitutional validity of section 4 having been already upheld by this court, no challenge can be thrown to the constitutional validity of section 5 as well. SRO No. 468 having spent its life on 31st March, 1977, there could be no question of levying sales tax on the sale of bricks with effect from 1st April, 1977, retrospectively. SRO No. 267 is neither violative of article 14 nor of articles 19 and 301. Manufacturers of bricks and manufacturers of tiles cannot be said to be similarly situated. Brick industry is a sufficiently old industry, which has established its firm roots in the economy of the State. As compared to it, tile industry is yet to take its roots in the economy of the State and needs adequate incentive at the hands of the Government, more so, when tiles are sold at a higher price as compared to bricks.