Uniform application of executive sales tax exemption required; arbitrary denial to similarly placed dealer violated Article 14.

An executive sales tax exemption for specified dealers, including plantains dealers, was treated as a benefit that had to be applied fairly and uniformly. The absence of a formal notification under Section 17 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 did not justify denying the exemption where the petitioner satisfied the Government Order and similarly placed dealers had received it. Unequal application of the exemption was characterised as discriminatory and contrary to Article 14, and the argument that there can be no estoppel against statute did not defeat the claim because the issue concerned inconsistent enforcement of an executive benefit already extended to others.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to claim the sales tax exemption under the Government Order despite the absence of a notification under Section 17 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959; and whether denial of the benefit, while others similarly placed received it, offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Government Order exempted dealers in specified commodities, including plantains, from sales tax where they had not submitted or been called upon to submit income-tax returns during the relevant period. The exemption was treated as an executive instruction conferring a benefit that had to be implemented fairly and liberally. The absence of a formal notification under Section 17 did not, on the facts, justify ignoring the instruction when the petitioner fell within its terms and other similarly placed dealers had obtained the benefit. The unequal application of the Government Order amounted to discrimination, and Article 14 bound the executive as well as the taxing authorities. The attempt to rely on the principle that there is no estoppel against statute did not assist the revenue, because the issue was not a waiver contrary to law but unequal enforcement of an executive benefit already extended to others.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Government Order, and the assessment and related orders were liable to be quashed as violative of Article 14.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the sales tax levy on the petitioner could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An executive exemption that confers a benefit on a class of dealers must be applied uniformly; where similarly situated persons are granted the benefit, arbitrary denial to one dealer is discriminatory and unenforceable under Article 14, even if the instruction is not framed as a statutory notification.

---