Separate taxation of butter and ghee upheld; double taxation challenge failed, and writ relief was refused for disputed facts.

Butter and ghee were treated as distinct commodities for sales tax purposes, so a notification levying purchase tax on each did not amount to impermissible double taxation or violate the proviso to section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. That proviso bars tax on the same transaction or the same dealer twice, not separate taxation of different goods classified separately by the Legislature. The writ challenge also failed because the material facts were disputed and required factual investigation by the assessing authority, while effective statutory remedies were available. The notification was upheld and the writ petition was rejected on merits and maintainability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notification levying purchase tax on butter and ghee as separate commodities was invalid on the ground of double taxation or conflict with the proviso to section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957; (ii) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be maintained in view of disputed facts and available statutory remedies.

Issue (i): Whether the notification levying purchase tax on butter and ghee as separate commodities was invalid on the ground of double taxation or conflict with the proviso to section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: The proviso to section 5(5) prohibits taxation of both buyer and seller in respect of the same transaction and bars a second tax on the same dealer in respect of sale of goods already taxed on purchase. It does not prohibit taxation of different dealers dealing in different goods or taxation of products which the Legislature has treated as separate commodities. Butter and ghee were specified in the notification as distinct items, and the Court held that the Legislature was entitled to so classify them for sales tax purposes. The contention that taxation of both amounted to forbidden double taxation therefore failed.

Conclusion: The challenge to the notification on the ground of double taxation and breach of section 5(5) failed, and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be maintained in view of disputed facts and available statutory remedies.

Analysis: The factual foundation that the petitioners' vendors had already paid tax on butter was disputed, and the extent to which the petitioners' purchases related to butter converted into ghee required investigation by the assessing authority. The Court held that it was not suited to decide such disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction. It also noted that the Act provided effective alternative remedies which had not been pursued.

Conclusion: The writ petition was premature and not maintainable on these facts, and this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The notification was upheld, and the petition challenging it was rejected both on merits and on maintainability grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the taxing statute treats two items as distinct commodities, their separate taxation does not amount to impermissible double taxation under a proviso that only forbids taxation of the same transaction or the same dealer twice; writ jurisdiction will not be used to resolve disputed factual issues where statutory remedies remain available.

---