Sales tax on processed and split foodgrains and dal upheld; amendment within state competence, levy sustained

Whether the State legislature validly imposed sales tax on purchases of split or processed foodgrains and dal under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 as amended by the 1970 Validation Act: Court held that the impugned amendment falls within the legislative competence of the State and that the statutory scheme, properly construed, extends the levy to processed/split foodgrains and dal as goods of sale; the tax obligation therefore attaches to such purchases and the challenge to the levy fails. Appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Explanation II to section 3-D and section 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1970 validly permit retrospective imposition and validation of tax on first purchases of split or processed foodgrains (dal) and whether the levy and validating provision are constitutionally and legally sustainable.

Analysis: The Court examined the statutory scheme of the United Provinces Sales Tax Act, 1948 including sections 3 (multi-point tax), 3-A, and 3-D (single-point taxation on first purchases), the notification issued under section 3-D, and the amendments introduced by the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1970 which added Explanation II to section 3-D and a validating section 7. The Court considered precedent on retrospective taxation and validating legislation, principles on classification under article 14, tests for discrimination in taxing statutes, the scope and effect of explanations and provisos in altering the ambit of a section, and the permissible delegation of details to the executive in taxation laws. The Court held that Explanation II operates to treat split/processed foodgrains as distinct from unsplit/unprocessed foodgrains for the purposes of section 3-D and that section 7 validly retrospectively validates notifications and assessments made under the section as amended. The Court rejected contentions that the amendment usurped judicial power, violated article 14 or article 19, or that the notification required a fresh separate notification explicitly listing processed and unprocessed foodgrains; it also found no excessive delegation in the executive power conferred.

Conclusion: The challenge to Explanation II and section 7 is dismissed and the amendments and retrospective validation are held valid in favour of Revenue.

---