Valid classification under Article 14 upheld for unregistered dealers evading tax; special sales tax provisions prevail over general escaped assessment rules.

Section 33(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and section 14(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 were upheld as a valid classification under Article 14. The Court held that unregistered dealers who fail to seek registration and pay tax form a distinct class from registered dealers and from cases of escaped or under-assessed turnover. The absence of a limitation period was justified by the greater difficulty and contumacious nature of tax evasion in such cases. The special provision was treated as governing that field, and the best judgment procedure was not arbitrary where notice, hearing, and relevant material were present.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 33(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and section 14(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 are unconstitutional as violative of article 14 because they apply only to unregistered dealers and operate without the limitation period provided for escaped assessment under section 35 of the 1959 Act and section 15 of the 1953 Act.

Analysis: Section 33(6) is confined to a distinct class of dealers who, though liable to tax, fail both to apply for registration and to pay tax. That special class is materially different from registered dealers and from dealers whose turnover merely escapes assessment or is under-assessed. The absence of a limitation period was held to rest on a rational basis, because tax evasion by unregistered dealers who ignore the statutory scheme from the outset is more difficult to detect and more contumacious in character. The two sets of provisions were treated as operating in different fields, with the special provision excluding the general provision by the rule that special law prevails over general law. The Court also held that the best judgment procedure is not arbitrary where notice and hearing are given and the assessment is based on relevant material.

Conclusion: The provisions are valid and do not offend article 14; action against unregistered dealers lies under the special provision and not under the escaped-assessment provision.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge failed, the special provisions were upheld as a valid classification aimed at preventing tax evasion, and the State appeals succeeded with the matters remitted for further proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A special taxing provision targeting unregistered dealers who deliberately evade registration and tax can validly exclude the general escaped-assessment provision if the classification is based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of preventing tax evasion.

---