Tax classification for packed cement upheld where separate billing was treated as a device to prevent tax avoidance.

A taxing classification that applied different rates to cement depending on whether packing material was included in the sale price or billed separately was upheld as rational. The scheme treated composite packed sales as one taxable unit, while separate billing of cement and packing material attracted the higher rate on the cement component to prevent artificial splitting and tax avoidance. The Court applied the settled principle that taxing statutes have wide latitude in classification and that a challenge based on discrimination must meet a heavy burden. The statutory method of quantifying tax was found to preserve the essential character of the levy, so the article 14 challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether entry 18 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, as introduced by the 1996 amendment and read with section 6-C, was discriminatory and violative of article 14 because it prescribed different tax rates for cement depending on whether the packing material was included in the sale price or shown separately.

Analysis: The challenged levy created two categories of cement sales based on the manner in which the transaction was structured. Where cement was sold with packing material as a composite transaction, the lower rate applied to the aggregate turnover. Where the dealer bifurcated cement and packing material and billed them separately, the higher rate applied to the cement component. The classification was upheld as having a rational nexus with the legislative object of preventing tax avoidance and avoiding artificial splitting of transactions. The Court relied on the settled principles that a taxing statute enjoys wide latitude in classification, that the burden of proving discrimination is heavy, and that the Legislature may adopt different methods for quantifying tax so long as the essential character of the levy is preserved. It was also held that the statutory scheme was designed to treat packed goods as composite units and to prevent the revenue loss that could otherwise arise from separate billing of packing materials.

Conclusion: The classification was held not to be arbitrary or discriminatory, and the challenge under article 14 failed.

---