Equal sales tax on onions and treatment after harvesting made the levy constitutionally sustainable.

Sales tax on onion imported from outside the State was held constitutionally sustainable because the levy applied equally to onion grown within the State, defeating the claim of discrimination under Articles 301 and 304(a). The amended schedule entry also expressly covered onions within the taxable category of bulbs. The Court further treated onion, after harvesting, drying and removal of leaves before market, as a commodity subjected to processing, bringing it within the taxable entry. On that basis, the levy was upheld and the constitutional challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether sales tax on onion imported from outside the State was liable to be struck down as discriminatory under Articles 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution, and whether onion fell within the taxable entry as processed goods.

Analysis: The applicable schedule entry, as amended, expressly included onions within the taxable category of bulbs. The factual basis for discrimination also failed, because onion grown within the State was shown to be subjected to the same levy as onion brought from outside. The Court further held that onion, after harvesting, drying and removal of leaves before being taken to market, undergoes treatment amounting to processing. In that view, the definition of dealer and the schedule entry together supported the levy, and no unconstitutional discrimination was established.

Conclusion: The levy of sales tax on onion imported from outside the State was upheld and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where both locally produced and imported goods are subjected to the same sales tax and the commodity is brought to market after treatment amounting to processing, the levy is not discriminatory and is constitutionally sustainable.

---