Retrospective tax amendment upheld where it clarified levy, removed loopholes, and avoided discrimination in liquor taxation.

Retrospective sales tax amendments are valid where they clarify legislative intent, cure ambiguity, and close tax-avoidance loopholes without imposing an arbitrary or oppressive burden. The Andhra Pradesh amendment to the Sixth Schedule was upheld because it treated wholesalers holding dual licences consistently with the intended incidence of tax and did not offend Article 14. It also applied the levy even-handedly to imported and locally marketed liquor, so no discrimination contrary to Articles 301 or 304(a was shown. The scheme was further held to be within the statutory framework for liquor taxation, with beer covered and toddy and arrack excluded, so the challenge based on Article 366(29-A) and lack of guidance failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the retrospective amendment made by section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Act 25 of 1988 to the explanation to the Sixth Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was unconstitutional as unreasonable or violative of Article 14. (ii) Whether the amendment discriminated between imported liquor and locally marketed liquor so as to infringe Articles 301 and 304(a). (iii) Whether the amendment was ultra vires Article 366(29-A) or otherwise failed for want of guidance in treating liquor and beer under the Schedule.

Issue (i): Whether the retrospective amendment made by section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Act 25 of 1988 to the explanation to the Sixth Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was unconstitutional as unreasonable or violative of Article 14.

Analysis: Retrospective taxation is permissible where the Legislature acts to cure ambiguity, remove a loophole, or make its original intention explicit. The amended explanation was introduced to prevent wholesalers holding dual licences from treating what was in substance a first sale as a last sale and thereby paying tax at a lower rate. The earlier language had created uncertainty and enabled tax-avoidance devices. The five-year retrospective period was not, by itself, decisive, and the levy did not impose such unforeseen or oppressive burden as to attract Article 14 invalidity. The amendment merely made the scheme clear and gave statutory effect to the intended incidence of tax.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment was valid and not unconstitutional; the challenge under Article 14 failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment discriminated between imported liquor and locally marketed liquor so as to infringe Articles 301 and 304(a).

Analysis: The amended explanation treated liquor sold by manufacturers in the State and imported liquor alike for purposes of the relevant point of levy. It did not single out imported liquor for a higher burden. On the contrary, it brought parity in the incidence of taxation and removed an anomalous advantage that had arisen under the earlier wording. No hostile discrimination or restrictive burden on inter-State trade was shown.

Conclusion: The amendment did not violate Articles 301 or 304(a).

Issue (iii): Whether the amendment was ultra vires Article 366(29-A) or otherwise failed for want of guidance in treating liquor and beer under the Schedule.

Analysis: The levy under the Sixth Schedule remained a tax on sale of liquor. The amendment only clarified the concepts of first sale and last sale and adjusted the rate structure accordingly. Beer was comprehended within the expression "all liquors", and toddy and arrack were expressly excluded. The contention that there was no guidance to identify liquor and beer was untenable in view of the statutory text and scheme.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 366(29-A) and the contention based on lack of guidance were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The retrospective amendment to the Sixth Schedule was upheld in its entirety, and the writ petitions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective tax amendment is valid where it removes ambiguity, cures a loophole, and effectuates the original legislative intent without imposing a constitutionally unreasonable or discriminatory burden.

---