Express statutory exclusion of sugar candy upheld, and State sales tax levy survived challenges under declared-goods and excise-sharing laws.

Sugar candy was expressly excluded from the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 exemption for sugar, so the State's restricted exemption validly applied to it. The challenge based on declared-goods treatment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 also failed because the asserted tax-rate issue had to be examined in assessment proceedings and was not established on the record. A further objection based on the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 was rejected: the excise-sharing arrangement did not by itself render the State sales tax void, and at most affected inter-governmental adjustment. The writ appeal consequently failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sugar candy fell within the exempted item of sugar under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. (ii) Whether the levy of sales tax on sugar candy at 8 per cent was invalid on the ground that sugar was declared goods under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (iii) Whether the levy of sales tax on sugar candy was void because sugar was covered by the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.

Issue (i): Whether sugar candy fell within the exempted item of sugar under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993.

Analysis: The exemption under section 9 read with Schedule I of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 was confined to the goods expressly included in the schedule. Item No. 36 exempted sugar but specifically excluded sugar candy, confectionery and similar items. The legislative choice to restrict the scope of exemption was within the competence of the State Legislature. The contention that sugar candy was merely another form of sugar could not override the express exclusion.

Conclusion: The exclusion of sugar candy from the exemption was valid and the issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy of sales tax on sugar candy at 8 per cent was invalid on the ground that sugar was declared goods under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The argument rested on sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and on the submission that tax on declared goods could not exceed 4 per cent. The Court held that the rate of tax actually chargeable was a matter to be examined in assessment proceedings and could not, on the facts before it, be used to invalidate the levy itself. The record did not establish that the levy had in fact been imposed in the manner alleged.

Conclusion: The challenge to the levy on this ground failed and the issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the levy of sales tax on sugar candy was void because sugar was covered by the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.

Analysis: The Court held that the contention involved a mixed question of law and fact and lacked supporting pleadings and evidence. The proviso to clause (1) of the Second Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 did not render the State levy non est; at most, it affected the amount payable to the State under that Act. The State sales tax on sugar candy therefore remained legally valid notwithstanding the excise-duty arrangement.

Conclusion: The levy was not invalidated by the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and the issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal failed in its entirety and the dismissal of the writ petition was sustained, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: An express statutory exclusion from exemption must be given effect, and the existence of a Central excise-sharing arrangement does not by itself invalidate a State sales tax levy on the same goods unless the statute expressly so provides.

---