1971 (4) TMI 81 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court grants sales tax exemption, citing discrimination and upholding fundamental rights.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that they were entitled to exemption from sales tax under G.O. Ms. No. 1285, Revenue, despite the ... - Issues:1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption from sales tax under G.O. Ms. No. 1285, Revenue, dated 27th April, 1959.2. Whether the petitioner has been discriminated against in the assessment proceedings.3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under Article 14 of the Constitution.Analysis:1. The petitioner contended that, as per G.O. Ms. No. 1285, Revenue, plantain dealers not assessed to income tax were exempt from sales tax. Despite the petitioner's compliance with the conditions, the assessment was upheld. The court held that administrative orders impacting civil rights can be corrected by courts. The G.O. aimed to exempt certain dealers from sales tax, and the petitioner met the criteria. The court emphasized liberal interpretation of such instructions to benefit the dealer. The petitioner's nil assessment for 1958-59 did not disqualify him from exemption. The court found the petitioner entitled to exemption under the G.O., irrespective of formalities under the Sales Tax Act.2. The petitioner alleged discrimination as other dealers received exemption under the same G.O. The respondent argued that the G.O. was an executive instruction, not a notification under the Sales Tax Act. The court referenced Article 14 of the Constitution, emphasizing equal application of law. It noted that the petitioner, like other dealers, should benefit from the G.O. The court cited precedents highlighting the State's obligation to uphold fundamental rights uniformly. The court found the petitioner had been discriminated against and that the State's rejection of relief was violative of Article 14.3. The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the G.O. and that the assessment process erred in denying this benefit. It noted that the absence of a formal notification did not negate the petitioner's entitlement. The court criticized the authorities for acting against the clear exemption in the G.O. The court, exercising discretion, allowed the petition, quashing the assessment. The judgment emphasized the State's duty to apply laws equally and uphold citizens' rights without discrimination, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner.