Equality in tax classification upheld where separate treatment reflected the stage of liability, not hostile discrimination.

Section 8(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was upheld as consistent with Article 14 because it applied uniformly to dealers liable to pay tax before assessment, while section 8(1-B) operated only after assessment or reassessment and granted a three-month respite before interest accrued. The distinction rested on the stage at which liability arose and did not impose a hostile burden on any class of dealer. A statutory concession for post-assessment cases did not render the absence of a similar concession in pre-assessment cases arbitrary or discriminatory. Accordingly, no violation of equality was made out and section 8(1) was not unconstitutional.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 8(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India by creating discrimination in view of section 8(1-B) of the Act.

Analysis: Section 8(1) applied uniformly to dealers in respect of tax admittedly payable before assessment. Section 8(1-B) operated after assessment or reassessment and granted every dealer a three-month respite before interest became payable. The distinction was based on the stage of the liability and did not place an adverse burden on any class of dealer. A provision conferring a concession or advantage does not amount to hostile discrimination, and the absence of a similar concession for pre-assessment cases did not render section 8(1) arbitrary or violative of equality.

Conclusion: Section 8(1) was not unconstitutional, and no violation of Article 14 was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: Differential treatment under a taxing provision does not attract Article 14 unless it results in hostile discrimination, and a statutory concession or respite granted to one class does not by itself invalidate the separate treatment of another class.

---