Article 304(a) challenge fails where the tax rate is uniform, even if valuation creates a heavier burden on imported goods.

Entry 9(b) of Schedule III under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was examined for discrimination under article 304(a) because tanned hides and skins imported from outside the State bore a heavier practical tax burden than goods tanned within the State. The analysis noted that hides and skins were declared goods and that the levy applied at the purchase stage, but the constitutional focus under later Supreme Court authority was on differential rates of tax on similar goods, not on every difference in valuation-driven burden. Applying that principle, the entry was treated as valid because the rate of tax was the same, and the challenge under article 304(a) failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether entry 9(b) of Schedule III of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was discriminatory and violative of article 304(a) of the Constitution of India because tanned hides and skins imported from outside the State were subjected to a heavier tax burden than similar goods tanned within the State.

Analysis: Hides and skins were declared goods under the Central Sales Tax Act, and the impugned State entry operated by taxing tanned hides and skins at the relevant point of purchase. The challenge turned on the practical difference in tax burden arising from the higher value of tanned goods imported from outside the State as compared with goods tanned within the State after tax had already been levied at the raw-hide stage. The Court examined the earlier Supreme Court decisions on article 304(a) and noted that the later authorities emphasised that the constitutional prohibition is against differential rates of tax on similar goods, not every difference in the quantum of tax arising from valuation. Applying that principle, the Court held that although entry 9(b) might appear discriminatory when viewed in isolation, the controlling later decisions required the validity of the entry to be upheld because the rate of tax was the same.

Conclusion: Entry 9(b) of Schedule III was held valid and not unconstitutional under article 304(a).

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed and were dismissed, with the impugned sales tax entry sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 304(a) prohibits differential rates of tax on similar imported and locally produced goods, but does not invalidate a levy merely because the taxable value or resulting burden differs where the rate applied is the same.

---