Retrospective taxation and reasonable classification in fiscal law upheld where jaggery transactions were treated separately under article 14.

Retrospective sales tax on jaggery and the removal of the minimum turnover limit were upheld because fiscal legislation may adopt a reasonable classification with greater latitude in tax matters; the jaggery-based distinction had an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the legislative object, so the levy was not hit by article 14. Section 9, which exempted dealers who had not collected tax from retrospective liability, was also upheld because the distinction between dealers who had collected tax and those who had not was based on a relevant hardship-related consideration and was connected to the amendment's purpose.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the retrospective levy and the special treatment of jaggery transactions under sections 2, 5 and 11 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1970 violated article 14 of the Constitution; (ii) Whether section 9 of the Amendment Act, which exempted dealers who had not collected tax from liability to pay tax, was discriminatory and ultra vires article 14.

Issue (i): Whether the retrospective levy and the special treatment of jaggery transactions under sections 2, 5 and 11 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1970 violated article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The impugned provisions retrospectively subjected jaggery transactions to tax and removed the minimum turnover limit for that commodity, while also validating prior assessments. A taxing law may make a reasonable classification, and greater latitude is allowed in fiscal matters. The classification of jaggery as a separate taxable group was supported by relevant features of the commodity and its trade, and the retrospective operation did not by itself render the levy unconstitutional. The Court held that the classification had an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the legislative object.

Conclusion: The retrospective charging provisions under sections 2, 5 and 11 were valid and not hit by article 14.

Issue (ii): Whether section 9 of the Amendment Act, which exempted dealers who had not collected tax from liability to pay tax, was discriminatory and ultra vires article 14.

Analysis: Section 9 operated separately from the charging provisions and granted exemption from payment of tax to a defined class of dealers who could prove non-collection. The Court held that the distinction between dealers who had collected tax and those who had not collected it was based on a relevant consideration, namely hardship in enforcing retrospective liability where no tax had been collected. The burden of proving entitlement to the exemption was placed on the dealer, and the classification was treated as connected with the object of the amendment.

Conclusion: Section 9 was valid and was not unconstitutional under article 14.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge to the retrospective jaggery taxation scheme failed, and the exemption provision was also upheld, with the appellants obtaining relief only to the extent that the High Court's invalidation of section 9 was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal legislation, retrospective taxation and differential treatment are constitutionally permissible if the classification is reasonable, based on an intelligible differentia, and bears a rational relation to the object of the statute; an exemption tied to a provable factual condition may also withstand article 14 scrutiny where it is integrally connected with the legislative purpose.

---