Turnover-based additional sales tax upheld as a valid sales tax and rational graded taxation

An amended additional sales tax that merely changes the computation base from tax assessed under the general sales tax law to taxable turnover remains a tax on sales and does not exceed legislative competence. A slab-based levy classified by turnover is constitutionally permissible because differential turnover provides a rational basis for graded taxation and reflects capacity to pay, so the equality challenge fails. The levy also does not become invalid merely because it burdens business or limits passing the incidence to consumers, and no confiscatory effect or unreasonable restraint on trade was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended additional sales tax levy was beyond legislative competence or ceased to be a tax on sales; (ii) Whether the slab-based classification of dealers according to taxable turnover violated equality; (iii) Whether the levy offended the freedom to carry on business or the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse.

Issue (i): Whether the amended additional sales tax levy was beyond legislative competence or ceased to be a tax on sales?

Analysis: The amendment did not create a fresh impost. It only altered the mode of computation of the existing additional tax by shifting the base from tax assessed under the general sales tax law to taxable turnover. The character of the impost remained a tax on the sale of goods, and the legislative competence already upheld in relation to the parent enactment continued to support the amended provision.

Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of lack of legislative competence failed, and the levy remained a valid sales tax measure.

Issue (ii): Whether the slab-based classification of dealers according to taxable turnover violated equality?

Analysis: The classification rested on differential turnover, which supplied a rational basis for graded taxation. A larger dealer could legitimately be treated as a separate class, since capacity to pay may be proportionate to volume of business. The mere fact that dealers selling the same commodity may bear different rates because of turnover does not make the scheme arbitrary.

Conclusion: The levy did not offend the equality guarantee and the challenge under Article 14 failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the levy offended the freedom to carry on business or the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse?

Analysis: A tax does not become unconstitutional merely because it imposes a burden on business or restricts passing on the incidence to purchasers. The levy was not shown to be confiscatory, and the prohibition against collection from consumers did not convert the impost into a tax on income or an unreasonable restriction. No violation of the freedom of trade and commerce was made out.

Conclusion: The challenges under Article 19 and Article 301 failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned amendment was upheld in substance, and the petitions challenging the additional sales tax levy were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: An additional sales tax retains its character as a tax on sales if the legislature merely changes the method of computation, and a turnover-based graded levy is constitutionally valid when it rests on a rational classification linked to capacity to pay.

---