Retrospective sales tax validation upheld, with ordinance-based charging provisions and a workable fiscal classification under the Sixth Schedule.

An ordinance promulgated under Article 213 was treated as having the force of law and, by inserting the relevant charging provision, authorised sales tax on country liquor and other liquors during the disputed period. Liability attached on the taxable sale itself, and the later Amendment Act operated retrospectively from 8 July 1983, validating the levy for the interim period. The Sixth Schedule proviso was also upheld: the differential rates, set-off mechanism for intermediate sales, and lower final-stage rate were found to be a rational fiscal classification, not hostile discrimination. The turnover definition provided a workable basis for applying the scheme, and the taxing provisions were sustained as constitutionally valid and operative.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the levy of sales tax on country liquor and other liquors for the period 8 July 1983 to 20 September 1983 was authorised by the Ordinance and the Amendment Act, and (ii) whether the proviso to the Sixth Schedule violated Article 14 or was otherwise unworkable or ambiguous.

Issue (i): whether the levy of sales tax on country liquor and other liquors for the period 8 July 1983 to 20 September 1983 was authorised by the Ordinance and the Amendment Act.

Analysis: Ordinance No. 11 of 1983 operated as law under Article 213 of the Constitution of India and amended the charging provision by inserting clause (d) in section 5(2), thereby authorising tax on the goods placed in the Sixth Schedule. The taxable event was the sale itself, and liability arose when the sale occurred, even though assessment and collection followed later. The later Amendment Act of 1984 continued the same scheme and gave retrospective effect to the relevant provisions from 8 July 1983. The contention that no charging provision existed for the intervening period was rejected.

Conclusion: The levy for the period 8 July 1983 to 20 September 1983 was valid and enforceable.

Issue (ii): whether the proviso to the Sixth Schedule violated Article 14 or was otherwise unworkable or ambiguous.

Analysis: The levy at different points of sale, with a set-off mechanism for intermediate sales and a lower rate at the last point of sale, was treated as a rational tax classification linked to the object of the legislation. The Court held that fiscal classification permits a wide margin of choice, and the scheme did not create unconstitutional discrimination. The turnover definition in section 2(s) supplied a workable basis for applying the set-off, and the proviso was not found to be ambiguous in the manner suggested.

Conclusion: The proviso to the Sixth Schedule was upheld as constitutionally valid and workable.

Final Conclusion: The challenged taxing scheme was sustained in full, and the assessments were directed to proceed on the basis of the Sixth Schedule as operative from 8 July 1983.

Ratio Decidendi: An ordinance promulgated under Article 213 has the same force as an Act while in operation, and a sales tax liability attaches on the taxable sale itself, so retrospective validation of the charging and schedule provisions can sustain the levy for the period the ordinance remained in force; fiscal classifications will be upheld if they are rational and connected with the legislative object.

---