Turnover tax on liquor gross turnover upheld where the charging provision and exemption scheme were read separately.

Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was construed as a clear levy on total turnover, including liquor turnover, even where part of that turnover was taxed under other provisions. The Statement of Objects and Reasons could not narrow the charging language. The deduction used to compute liquor tax under section 5 and the Sixth Schedule was only a measure for that levy and did not operate as an exemption from turnover tax. The differential exemption treatment for goods exempt under section 9 did not establish discrimination under article 14, since exemption is a matter of legislative policy and no constitutional infirmity was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether turnover tax under section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be levied on the gross turnover of liquor, and whether the levy was illegal, arbitrary, or discriminatory under article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The levy under section 5-A was expressed in clear terms as a tax on total turnover, whether or not the whole or any part of such turnover was liable to tax under other provisions of the Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons could not cut down the plain language of the charging provision. The deduction allowed in computing liquor tax under section 5 read with the Sixth Schedule was only a method of arriving at the taxable measure for that separate levy and did not amount to a statutory exemption from turnover tax under section 5-A. The exemption granted to goods exempt under section 9 of the Act did not create discrimination against liquor dealers, since exemption is a matter of legislative policy and no infringement of article 14 was shown. The Act also permitted multiple charging provisions, and there was no legal bar against levy of turnover tax on gross turnover in addition to tax under section 5.

Conclusion: The levy of turnover tax on liquor turnover under section 5-A was upheld, and the challenge based on statutory interpretation and article 14 failed.

---