Export-sale exemption and State sales tax levy must be tested under the Central law as amended, not frozen to earlier text.

A State sales tax provision subject to Parliament's export-sale rules was held to operate in conformity with the Central Sales Tax Act as amended from time to time, so the retrospective insertion of section 5(3) controlled the levy where a transaction was a penultimate export sale. The challenge to the validity of Andhra Pradesh Act 49 of 1976 therefore failed, and section 38 of the State Act was not confined to the Central Act as originally framed. Exemption claims under section 5(3) depended on factual matters such as a prior export order and compliance with it, so they were to be decided in assessment proceedings rather than by writ direction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the insertion of item 19 in the Second Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act by Andhra Pradesh Act 49 of 1976 was invalid because of the retrospective insertion of section 5(3) in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and whether section 38 of the State Act could be read as confined only to the pre-existing provisions of Chapter II of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (ii) Whether, in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ could be issued directing the sales tax authorities not to levy tax on purchases of prawns, lobsters, frogs and frog legs where the claim to exemption depended on satisfaction of the requirements of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether the State amendment was invalid and section 38 of the State Act was limited to the earlier form of the Central law.

Analysis: Section 38 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act merely gave effect to the constitutional scheme in article 286 and the principles to be formulated by Parliament under article 286(2). It did not amount to an abdication of legislative power or an adoption frozen to the law as it stood in 1957. The State Act had to operate in the light of the Central Sales Tax Act as amended from time to time, and the effect of the State charging provision had to be read subject to the constitutional and parliamentary restrictions governing export sales. The retrospective insertion of section 5(3) therefore controlled the operation of the State levy where the transaction answered the description of a penultimate export sale.

Conclusion: The challenge to the constitutional validity of Andhra Pradesh Act 49 of 1976 failed, and section 38 was not confined to the unamended Central Sales Tax Act.

Issue (ii): Whether a writ could be issued to prevent assessment where exemption depended on factual satisfaction under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The availability of exemption under section 5(3) depended on factual questions, including whether there was a pre-existing export agreement or order, whether the relevant purchase was subsequent to that agreement, and whether it was made to comply with that agreement. Those matters had to be determined in the ordinary assessment process by the sales tax authorities. The writ jurisdiction was not the proper forum for issuing a specific direction on such disputed factual issues, especially when the statutory machinery was adequate to decide whether a particular transaction qualified for exemption.

Conclusion: No writ or specific direction could be granted, and the petitioners were left to the assessment process for determination of exemption claims.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable for the relief sought on the facts, and the State levy was upheld subject only to consideration by the assessing authorities of any transaction that might independently satisfy the export-sale exemption under the Central law.

Ratio Decidendi: A State sales tax provision that is constitutionally subject to Parliamentary rules on export sales must be read as operating in conformity with the Central law as it stands when the levy is applied, and exemption claims turning on whether a transaction is a penultimate export sale must ordinarily be decided by the assessing authority on facts rather than in writ jurisdiction.

---