Retrospective sales tax levy upheld where the charging provision itself supplied every element of tax liability.

A tax levy under section 5-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was upheld because the charging provision itself identified the taxable event, the liable dealer, the rate, and the measure of tax as the total amount charged for supply of food or drink. The later amendment enlarging the definitions of "sale," "turnover" and "tax" did not prevent assessment for the retrospective period, and Rule 5 could not override the statutory charge. The challenge to assessment for the period from 2 February 1983 to 30 June 1985 was rejected, and the demand remained undisturbed, subject only to consideration of the plea regarding non-collection before the assessing authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the levy of sales tax under section 5-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, could be sustained for the relevant period despite the retrospective amendment, and whether the absence of an amended definition of "turnover" until a later date prevented assessment on the total amount charged for supply of food or drink.

Analysis: Section 5-C itself identified the taxable event as the supply or service of food, drinks or other articles for human consumption. It also specified the person liable to pay tax, namely the dealer running a restaurant, eating house or hotel, the rate of tax, and the measure of levy as the total amount charged for such supply or service. The definition of "dealer" in section 2(e) included a club. On that basis, all the components necessary for a valid tax levy were present in the section itself. The later amendment enlarging the meaning of "sale", "turnover" and "tax" did not defeat the levy for the period covered by the retrospective operation of section 5-C. Rule 5 did not displace the statutory charge created by the amended provision.

Conclusion: The challenge to the levy failed, and the contention that tax could not be assessed for the period between 2 February 1983 and 30 June 1985 was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the merits and the demand was left undisturbed, subject only to consideration of the plea regarding non-collection of tax before the assessing authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax levy is valid where the charging provision itself clearly specifies the taxable event, the person liable, the rate, and the measure of tax, and retrospective operation is not defeated merely because a related definitional amendment takes effect later.

---