Concessional tax does not bar separate additional tax under an independent charging provision, where statutory ceilings are respected.

A concessional purchase tax under section 4-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act did not exclude levy of additional tax under section 3-F on declared goods. Section 4-B applied only to tax under specified charging provisions, while section 3-F operated as an independent charging provision; the levy remained valid so long as the combined tax burden stayed within the ceiling under section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The differential treatment based on recognition certificates was also upheld because it did not place the assessee above similarly situated dealers or create unconstitutional discrimination. The challenge to the additional tax therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether additional tax under section 3-F of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could be levied on declared goods where the assessee was already enjoying concessional purchase tax under section 4-B, and (ii) whether such levy violated article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether additional tax under section 3-F of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could be levied on declared goods where the assessee was already enjoying concessional purchase tax under section 4-B

Analysis: Oil-seeds were declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the total tax burden could not exceed the ceiling prescribed by section 15 of that Act. However, the assessee's purchase tax under section 3-D stood reduced to 2 per cent by a notification under section 4-B, and section 3-F levied an additional tax only so long as the combined burden did not cross the statutory maximum. Section 4-B granted concession only in relation to tax payable under sections 3, 3-A, 3-AA and 3-D, while section 3-F operated as an independent charging provision. The concessional notification could not be extended to exclude the additional tax.

Conclusion: The additional tax under section 3-F was validly leviable and the challenge failed.

Issue (ii): whether such levy violated article 14 of the Constitution of India

Analysis: The differentiation was based on the tax structure applicable to dealers with and without recognition certificates. Dealers without such certificates paid the normal rate of tax at 3 per cent, while dealers holding certificates, even with the additional tax, remained below that ceiling. The levy did not place the assessee at a higher burden than similarly situated dealers and did not create unconstitutional discrimination.

Conclusion: The levy did not offend article 14.

Final Conclusion: The petition challenging the levy of additional tax failed, and the assessment of additional tax was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A concessional tax provision confined to specified charging sections does not exclude a separate additional tax under an independent charging section, provided the combined burden remains within the statutory ceiling and no unconstitutional discrimination is shown.

---