Imported goods and sales tax classification: higher tax rate upheld as a valid distinction, not unconstitutional discrimination.

Imported goods may retain their character as imported goods for State sales tax classification even after customs clearance, because customs concepts do not control the State's taxing power over sales within the State. A higher sales tax rate on imported goods than on comparable domestically manufactured goods was treated as a permissible reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia, not hostile discrimination, and was not shown to violate Articles 14 or 301 to 304. The GATT framework did not override domestic law or require Presidential assent under Article 304(b) on these facts. The levy and connected orders were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether imported goods, after customs clearance, lose their character as imported goods for the purpose of levy of sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. (ii) Whether the levy of 20% sales tax on imported goods, as against 12% on comparable goods manufactured in India, is discriminatory or violative of Articles 14 and 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India. (iii) Whether the GATT framework required the State to treat imported goods differently only with the assent of the President under Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether imported goods, after customs clearance, lose their character as imported goods for the purpose of levy of sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The liability under the sales tax law was held to depend on the State's taxing power over goods sold within the State, not on the customs law concepts governing clearance, bill of entry, or crossing of customs frontiers. Clearance for home consumption may be relevant under customs law, but it does not by itself eliminate the identity of the goods as imported goods for State sales tax classification. Imported goods were treated as retaining a distinct identity even after customs clearance.

Conclusion: The imported goods do not lose their character as imported goods merely because customs duty has been paid and the goods have been cleared from the customs frontiers.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy of 20% sales tax on imported goods, as against 12% on comparable goods manufactured in India, is discriminatory or violative of Articles 14 and 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Taxing statutes were held to permit a wide latitude in classification, provided the distinction rests on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object of the statute. Imported goods were held to constitute a separate class, and the State was entitled to prescribe a higher rate for that class. Part XIII was held to regulate restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse, but not to prohibit a reasonable tax classification based on the foreign-origin character of the goods. The challenge under Article 14 failed because the burden of proving hostile discrimination was not discharged, and the levy was not shown to be arbitrary or capricious. The court also rejected the contention that Presidential assent under Article 304(b) was required.

Conclusion: The higher rate of sales tax on imported goods was not discriminatory and did not violate Articles 14 or 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (iii): Whether the GATT framework required the State to treat imported goods differently only with the assent of the President under Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: International obligations under GATT were held not to override municipal law where there is no statutory conflict requiring displacement of domestic legislation. The State's power to classify imported goods for sales tax purposes remained unaffected, and the agreement could not be used to invalidate the levy or to impose a requirement of Presidential assent.

Conclusion: The GATT-based challenge failed, and Presidential assent under Article 304(b) was not required.

Final Conclusion: The impugned levy and the connected orders were upheld on the basis that imported goods could be separately classified for sales tax, and the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Imported goods may be treated as a distinct class for State sales tax purposes on the basis of reasonable classification and intelligible differentia, and such classification does not, by itself, offend Article 14 or Part XIII of the Constitution.

---