Best judgment assessment and tax classification upheld where estimates rested on material and the statutory distinction had rational nexus.

A best judgment sales tax assessment based on estimated turnover was upheld because the estimate rested on relevant material, including purchases of mutton and the absence of evidence on other meal ingredients, rather than mere conjecture. The proviso to section 3(1)(b) of the Andhra Sales Tax Act was also sustained because the classification of dealers by goods sold, place of sale, and turnover had an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with equitable tax apportionment and efficient revenue collection. The court held that taxation classifications receive wider latitude and are presumed valid unless clearly shown to be arbitrary.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the best judgment assessment based on the estimated turnover was arbitrary or unsupported by material. (ii) Whether the proviso to section 3(1)(b) of the Andhra Sales Tax Act offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the best judgment assessment based on the estimated turnover was arbitrary or unsupported by material.

Analysis: The turnover was estimated on the basis of the purchases of mutton and the absence of evidence regarding other ingredients necessary for the meals sold. The estimate was therefore made from relevant material and not by mere guesswork. A best judgment assessment is sustainable where the authority acts on material reasonably available.

Conclusion: The assessment was not arbitrary and was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to section 3(1)(b) of the Andhra Sales Tax Act offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification if based on an intelligible differentia and if that differentia has a rational relation to the object of the statute. In taxation, a wider latitude is allowed in classification, and legislative classifications are presumed valid unless clearly shown otherwise. The proviso distinguished dealers by the nature of goods sold, the place of sale, and the extent of turnover, and the differentiation had a rational nexus with equitable apportionment of tax burden and easy realisation of revenue.

Conclusion: The proviso did not violate Article 14 and was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision was rejected, and the tax assessment as well as the impugned classification in the sales tax provision were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxation classification is valid if it is founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of the statute, and a best judgment assessment is sustainable when based on relevant material rather than conjecture.

---