State sales tax on tapioca upheld: legislative classification, exemption proof, and Article 301 challenge all failed.

Inclusion of tapioca in the State sales tax schedule was upheld as a valid legislative choice and not colourable, arbitrary, or unconstitutional under Articles 19, 301, or 304, even though exporters or exempt goods could incidentally be affected. The levy was also sustained because the proviso-based exemption did not require a prescribed proof mechanism; entitlement could be established by any lawful mode of evidence. The objection under section 58 failed since the tax was imposed by the legislature itself, not by executive action. The result was that the levy was sustained in full and the petitions were dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the inclusion of tapioca in the First Schedule and the resulting levy were colourable, arbitrary, or violative of Articles 19 and 304 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the absence of a prescribed method for proving entitlement to the proviso-based exemption invalidated the levy; (iii) Whether Article 301 of the Constitution of India or the challenge based on section 58 could defeat the tax.

Issue (i): Whether the inclusion of tapioca in the First Schedule and the resulting levy were colourable, arbitrary, or violative of Articles 19 and 304 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Tapioca was brought within the taxable schedule under the State sales tax law, with tax attracted at the last purchase point. The levy was challenged as being designed to affect exports and as lacking reasonableness. The decision applied the settled principle that a State may select the objects, persons, methods, and rates of taxation so long as the choice is reasonable. The levy was held to be within legislative competence and not confiscatory. A tax otherwise valid does not become colourable merely because exporters may also bear tax under the Central sales tax law or because exempt goods remain capable of taxation.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and the levy was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of a prescribed method for proving entitlement to the proviso-based exemption invalidated the levy.

Analysis: The proviso allowed exemption where the dealer's turnover was below the stated limit and the tapioca was sold for domestic consumption and as food material. No specific statutory mode of proof was provided. The decision accepted that where the statute does not prescribe a particular method, the assessee is free to prove the qualifying facts in any legally permissible manner.

Conclusion: The absence of a prescribed proof mechanism did not invalidate the provision.

Issue (iii): Whether Article 301 of the Constitution of India or the challenge based on section 58 could defeat the tax.

Analysis: No factual basis was established to show that the movement of tapioca in trade was hindered, obstructed, or restricted so as to attract Article 301. The section 58 objection was rejected because the tax was imposed by the legislature itself and not by the Government.

Conclusion: Neither Article 301 nor the section 58 objection succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned levy was sustained in full and the original petitions were dismissed without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax imposed by competent legislation is not colourable or unconstitutional merely because it incidentally affects exporters or exempted goods, and where no specific proof procedure is prescribed, entitlement to an exemption may be established by any lawful mode of evidence.

---