Article 301 and sales tax: differing State rates alone do not make a levy unconstitutional without direct trade restriction.

Article 301 does not invalidate a sales tax levy merely because wheat and wheat products are taxed differently from comparable goods in other States. The note explains that constitutional infirmity arises only where the tax, by its operation, directly and immediately restricts or hampers the free flow of trade and commerce. Examining the State rate structure, the declared goods ceiling under the Central Sales Tax framework, and the absence of discriminatory treatment or direct impediment to movement of goods, the analysis concludes that the additional tax and surcharge provisions were not unconstitutional on their own. The later reduction in tax rate further weakened the challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the levy of sales tax, additional tax and surcharge on wheat and wheat products under the State sales tax law violated the constitutional freedom of trade and commerce under Article 301 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 301 guarantees freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India, but every tax law does not ipso facto infringe that freedom. The challenge was examined in the context of the actual rate structure under the State law, the ceiling applicable to declared goods under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, and the comparative tax position in other States. The impugned levy did not create the kind of discriminatory treatment or direct impediment to trade that had been found objectionable in cases involving preferential treatment for local goods or tax on movement of goods. The mere existence of different sales tax rates among States, without more, was held insufficient to establish a violation of Article 301. The additional tax and surcharge provisions were also found not to be unconstitutional on their own, and the subsequent reduction in the rate of tax further weakened the grievance.

Conclusion: The levy was not unconstitutional under Article 301 and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were rejected because the impugned tax structure did not amount to an unconstitutional restriction on free trade and commerce.

Ratio Decidendi: A sales tax levy is not invalid under Article 301 merely because the rate differs from that in other States; unconstitutionality arises only where the tax, by its operation, directly and immediately restricts or hampers the free flow of trade.

---