Last-purchase sales tax on mica upheld where it did not directly restrict trade or tax the export transaction itself.

A levy on mica under the amended Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was upheld against constitutional challenge. The court treated the tax as one at the last purchase point within the State and held that it was not shown to tax the export transaction itself, so Article 286 and the export-protection provisions were not violated. It further held that a tax does not offend Article 301 merely because it may indirectly affect trade; the levy was not a direct and immediate restriction on commerce. The objections based on Presidential assent and legislative competence were also rejected, and the writ petitions were dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the impugned levy on mica under the amended Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act violated Article 286 of the Constitution of India by taxing transactions in the course of export or in conflict with Section 38 of the Act; (ii) whether the levy offended Article 301 of the Constitution of India as a restriction on freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse under Part XIII; (iii) whether the amendment was invalid for want of Presidential assent and for lack of legislative competence under the State List.

Issue (i): whether the impugned levy on mica under the amended Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act violated Article 286 of the Constitution of India by taxing transactions in the course of export or in conflict with Section 38 of the Act.

Analysis: The amended schedule fixed tax at the point of last purchase within the State, while Section 7(b) created only a deeming rule identifying the stage immediately before export. The levy was not shown to be imposed on the sale or purchase that actually occasioned export. Section 38 excluded sales or purchases in the course of export, import, and inter-State trade. On the materials placed, no inconsistency between the amendment, Sections 5 and 7, and Section 38 was established.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Article 286 failed and the levy was not held void on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether the levy offended Article 301 of the Constitution of India as a restriction on freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse under Part XIII.

Analysis: The controlling test applied was whether the impugned tax directly and immediately restricted the movement of trade. A tax does not fall within Article 301 merely because it may indirectly affect commerce; only direct and immediate impediments are prohibited unless saved by the other provisions of Part XIII. The levy here was a purchase tax at the last purchase point and was not shown to operate as a direct barrier to trade or commerce.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Article 301 failed and the levy was not invalid under Part XIII.

Issue (iii): whether the amendment was invalid for want of Presidential assent and for lack of legislative competence under the State List.

Analysis: Article 200 did not impose an obligation on the Governor to reserve the Bill for the President in the circumstances shown. The challenge under Article 304 did not arise once Article 301 was not attracted. The levy was also treated as falling within Entry 54 of List II rather than within the Union field urged by the petitioners.

Conclusion: The objections based on Presidential assent and legislative competence were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge to the amended sales tax levy on mica failed in all material respects, and the writ petitions were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A sales tax on the last purchase point does not offend Article 301 unless it directly and immediately restricts trade, and a levy not shown to tax the export transaction itself is not invalid under Article 286 or the export-protection scheme of Part XIII.

---