Fiscal classification under sales tax law upheld where hoteliers and restaurateurs were treated as a separate liability class.

Section 5(5)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act treats hoteliers, restaurateurs, manufacturers, liquor and beer dealers, and dealers importing or exporting goods as separate classes, so the importer or exporter language does not qualify every preceding category. A hotelier or restaurateur need not also be an importer or exporter to fall within the provision. The different turnover thresholds and liability treatment for these classes were upheld as a rational fiscal classification, and the challenge under Article 14 failed because the dealers were not similarly situated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 5(5)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 applies only when a hotelier or restaurateur is an importer or exporter of goods. (ii) Whether the differential tax treatment of dealers under section 5(5) violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether section 5(5)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 applies only when a hotelier or restaurateur is an importer or exporter of goods.

Analysis: Clause (a) exempts a dealer whose total turnover in a year is below the prescribed limit, while clause (b) begins with a non obstante provision and creates separate categories of persons liable to tax. The language of clause (b)(ii) covers hoteliers, restaurateurs, manufacturers, dealers in liquor and beer, and dealers bringing goods into the State or despatching goods outside the State. The importer and exporter language does not qualify every preceding category; it forms an independent class of dealers.

Conclusion: The provision does not require a hotelier or restaurateur to be an importer or exporter in order to fall within section 5(5)(b)(ii).

Issue (ii): Whether the differential tax treatment of dealers under section 5(5) violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Legislature is competent to create different classes of dealers and fix liability thresholds differently for each class. Dealers subjected to different turnover limits do not form one homogeneous class, and the Court will not test the wisdom of the classification so long as the distinction is rational.

Conclusion: The classification is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment failed and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute creates distinct classes of dealers and applies different liability thresholds to each class, the classification is valid if the categories are separately identifiable and the statutory language does not make one category dependent on another.

---