Non-discriminatory sales tax and statutory remedies upheld; rules effective on commencement were valid and writ relief was denied.

Rules made under a taxing statute are not invalid merely because they are published on the date the Act is brought into force; the rules here took effect when the Act as a whole commenced, so the validity challenge failed. A non-discriminatory sales tax on automobile parts, pneumatic tyres and tubes did not violate Articles 301, 302 or 304, so the constitutional challenge failed. Writ relief was also inappropriate because the petitioner had not pursued statutory objections and the sales tax law provided adequate alternative remedies, so the petition failed on that ground as well.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 were invalid for having been published before the Act came into force; (ii) Whether sales tax on automobile parts, pneumatic tyres and tubes offended Articles 301, 302 and 304 of the Constitution of India; (iii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief in writ jurisdiction despite the availability of remedies under the sales tax law.

Issue (i): Whether the rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 were invalid for having been published before the Act came into force.

Analysis: The Act provided that section 1 came into force at once while the remaining provisions were to commence on a date notified by the State Government. A notification appointed 15 June 1957 as the date for the rest of the Act to come into force, and the rules were published and became effective on the same date. The rules were therefore not framed or brought into force before the Act operated.

Conclusion: The rules were valid, and the contention of invalidity failed against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether sales tax on automobile parts, pneumatic tyres and tubes offended Articles 301, 302 and 304 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 301 guarantees freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, while Article 304 permits a State to impose tax on goods imported from other States if similar local goods are also taxed without discrimination. The reasoning treated State taxing power as permissible where the tax is imposed uniformly on goods of the same kind and does not discriminate against imported goods. The levy complained of did not violate those constitutional limitations.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge failed, and the levy was not shown to be unconstitutional.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief in writ jurisdiction despite the availability of remedies under the sales tax law.

Analysis: The petitioner had not filed objections to the notice issued by the assessing authority. The Court held that the sales tax statute provided adequate alternative remedies and that the petitioner could raise his objections before the statutory authority and pursue further remedies under the Act if necessary.

Conclusion: Writ relief was not warranted, and the petitioner was not entitled to any relief in the petition.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment proceedings and the impugned levy failed, and the writ petition was dismissed in limine on the merits and availability of alternate remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: Rules made under a taxing statute are not invalid merely because they are published on the date the statute is brought into force, and a constitutional challenge to a State sales tax levy must fail where the levy is non-discriminatory and the statute provides adequate alternative remedies.

---