Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"(v) an exemption in respect of the tax payable by any dealer under the said Act on the sale of vathals, vermicelli and bakery products without a brand name or with a brand name not registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (Central Act 43 of 1958), whose total turnover for a year does not exceed rupees three lakhs."

10. W.P. Nos. 14117 of 1988 and 12427 of 1989 are relatable to dealers in vermicelli, while W.P. Nos. 18186 to 18188 of 1990 are relatable to dealers in appalams. They challenged the vires of the notification dated October 7, 1988. Besides, the dealer in vermicelli in W.P. Nos. 12427 of 1989 also challenged the vires of the notification dated April 26, 1989. The dealers in appalams challenged the differential levy of tax on the basis of registration under the TMM Act.

16. Originally by issuance of the notification dated March 26, 1981, which came into force on and from April 1, 1981, total exemption had been granted to appalams, vermicelli and certain other products, without a brand name or with a brand name, not registered under the TMM Act.

17. Such total exemption in respect of those products was sought to be curtailed by the issuance of another notification dated May 30, 1988, which got published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on the June 15, 1988, the date on which it was to come into force. The curtailment effected therein was that vermicelli had been totally omitted from the purview of exemption and that apart, the exemption limit for appalams and certain other products was restricted to a dealer, whose total turnover for a year does not exceed two lakhs of rupees. The curtailment thus effected was applicable to the assessment year 1988-89.

18. Thereafter, by issuance of the notification dated October 7, 1988, which came into force on April 1, 1988, the curtailment effected by way of omission of vermicelli was sought to be rectified by having the same included for exemption purposes, along with appalams and certain other products, and while doing so, the exemption limit of the turnover had been raised to three Lakhs of rupees. No doubt, as already stated, this notification was given retrospective effect on and from April 1, 1988, as applicable to the assessment year 1988-89. This retrospectivity cannot at all be stated to be detrimental to the assessee-traders, in the sense of the exemption granted therein, in respect of such of those products being beneficial to them, at least to the extent of one lakh of rupees in respect of appalams and to the tune of three lakhs of rupees in the case of vermicelli. This sort of a ritualistic exercise had apparently been done, invoking the powers under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the TNGST Act.

23. Reasonableness of the classification has to be decided with reference to the realities of life and not in the abstract. The facts of the instant case, if viewed from the well-accepted principles as stated above, it cannot at all be stated that the differential levy of tax in the case of appalams, depending upon the dealer dealing in such goods, whether registered under the TMM Act or not, cannot at all be stated to be not falling within the net of reasonable classification.

24. No doubt true it is that appalams dealt with by a dealer, who has registered his products under the TMM Act is taxable at the point of first sale in the State at 10 per cent as per item 103(x) of the First Schedule. To put it otherwise, appalams dealt with by a dealer, who has not registered his product under the TMM Act is treated differently, in the sense of appalams dealt with by him not being subjected to single point tax at 10 per cent, coming under sub-section (2) of section 3, but attracts liability under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the TNGST Act, as if it is a goods coming under general category, exigible to tax at a rate in a percentage specified therein. Further under sub-section (1) of section 3, if the dealer dealing in appalams happens to be a casual trader or agent of non-resident dealer, then such dealing is exigible to tax liability at the rate mentioned therein, whatever be the quantum of the turnover. But, on the other hand, if the dealer dealing in appalams is not a causal trader or agent of a non-resident dealer, he is exigible to tax liability at the rates mentioned therein, when his turnover is not less than one lakh of rupees. Thus, it is clear that the dealers dealing in appalams had been classified into different categories, for attraction of the tax liability on the turnover either at single point or multi-point. Can it be said that such a classification, which leads to consequent differential treatment is violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India, as being purely discriminatory in nature ? The answer to such a question cannot at all be anyone other than an emphatic "no", on the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case.