Registration as an anti-evasion measure does not by itself create sales tax liability for millers.

Section 12(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was treated as a valid anti-evasion registration provision within State legislative competence, because it operated as a regulatory measure connected to sales tax administration and did not intrude on the Central law governing rice milling industry control. The requirement that every miller register, even if not yet shown to be a dealer, was held permissible. Registration was also distinguished from tax liability: tax arose only when the charging provision applied and dealer status with taxable turnover was established. The notices calling for registration were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 12(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, requiring every miller to register even if not a dealer, was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature in view of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958; (ii) Whether the notices directing the petitioners to register under section 12(3) were valid in law and whether registration itself fastened tax liability.

Issue (i): Whether section 12(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, requiring every miller to register even if not a dealer, was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature in view of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958.

Analysis: The impugned provision was enacted under the State power to levy taxes on the sale or purchase of goods and was designed to prevent evasion of sales tax. The Central legislation under entry 52 of List I occupied the field of control of the rice milling industry, but it did not cover sales tax regulation under entry 54 of List II. The requirement of registration of millers was treated as a regulatory measure within the State's competence, and the fact that some millers may not be dealers did not invalidate the provision.

Conclusion: Section 12(3) was held to be constitutionally valid and within the competence of the State Legislature.

Issue (ii): Whether the notices directing the petitioners to register under section 12(3) were valid in law and whether registration itself fastened tax liability.

Analysis: Registration was distinguished from tax liability. Liability to tax arose only when the charging provision was attracted and the person answered the definition of dealer with the requisite turnover and taxable dealings. Mere registration did not by itself impose sales tax. The notices were therefore only a step to verify the factual position and could not be said to be illegal on the ground that they automatically imposed tax.

Conclusion: The notices requiring registration were upheld as valid, and registration was held not to aneously create tax liability.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed, as the registration requirement was upheld as a valid anti-evasion measure and the impugned notices were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A State may require registration of persons engaged in a taxable line of business as a regulatory measure to prevent tax evasion, even where tax liability is yet to be determined, and such registration does not by itself create the liability to pay tax.

---