Legislative competence and exemption proof defeated the constitutional challenge to sales tax on granite-related charges.

The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act provisions permitting levy on polishing, dressing, handling and transport charges collected with granite sales were not unconstitutional, because the State Legislature had competence under Entry 54 of List II to enact the levy. The dispute concerned whether those charges formed part of turnover and whether exemption was proved in assessment proceedings; that issue depended on facts, not on absence of legislative power. As the assessee failed to establish the factual basis for exemption, the statutory provisions could not be struck down as ultra vires, and writ jurisdiction was not an appropriate route to relitigate the assessment issue. The constitutional challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 2(n), section 2(g) and section 2(j) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act could be declared unconstitutional and invalid on the ground that they authorised levy of sales tax on polishing, dressing, handling and transport charges collected in connection with granite sales.

Analysis: The challenge was rejected because the State Legislature had competence under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India to enact sales tax legislation, and the petitioner had submitted to the statutory assessment machinery. The dispute as to whether the charges were includible in turnover depended on the facts and on proof of entitlement to exemption in the assessment proceedings. Since the petitioner failed to establish the factual basis for exemption, the provisions themselves could not be struck down as unconstitutional or ultra vires, and writ jurisdiction was not an appropriate route to convert a failed factual exemption claim into a constitutional challenge.

Conclusion: The provisions were held not to be unconstitutional or invalid, and the writ petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional attack on the sales tax provisions was rejected, and the assessment-related grievance was left to stand without relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision cannot be struck down as unconstitutional merely because an assessee fails, on facts, to secure exemption in assessment proceedings, when the legislature has competence to enact the levy and the dispute turns on proof of exemption rather than lack of legislative power.

---