Residuary tax entry upheld for unclassified goods; pea-gravel held taxable and challenges for vagueness and delegation failed.

A residuary tax entry under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act was applied to pea-gravel because the schedule structure treated goods not specifically exempted or separately classified as taxable under the residuary list. The Court reasoned that the Act itself fixed the tax framework and left no executive discretion to select taxable goods, so the residuary entry was neither vague nor an instance of excessive delegation. The constitutional challenge under Article 285 also failed, as the levy was directed at goods sold within the State and no facial invalidity was shown. The review petition and writ petition were therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether entry 193 of Schedule II(b) of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 covered pea-gravel as a residuary item and sustained the levy of tax; (ii) Whether entry 193 was vague or amounted to excessive delegation; (iii) Whether the levy under the Act was violative of Article 285 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether entry 193 of Schedule II(b) of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 covered pea-gravel as a residuary item and sustained the levy of tax.

Analysis: Section 5 of the Act levied tax on taxable turnover, while section 7 fixed the rate with reference to the Schedules. The scheme showed that exempted goods were specifically placed in Schedule III and all other goods not covered by any specific Schedule fell within the residuary entry in Schedule II(b). The Court found the language of the provision and the schedule unambiguous and held that pea-gravel, not being included elsewhere, was taxable under entry 193.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether entry 193 of Schedule II(b) of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 was vague or amounted to excessive delegation.

Analysis: The Court held that the Legislature itself had fixed the tax structure and rates by the Act and the Schedules. No discretion was left to the executive to choose which goods would be taxed under the residuary entry. The provision merely operated on goods not specifically placed in the other schedules, and therefore did not suffer from vagueness or excessive delegation.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the levy under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 was violative of Article 285 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that the statute, on its face, reflected an intention to levy tax only on goods sold within the State within the legislative competence of the State. A challenge based on Article 285 could not succeed merely because the Act adopted a residuary basis for taxation of goods sold within the State. The Court also declined to hold the statute ultra vires on a speculative basis, leaving any item-specific challenge to be decided in an appropriate case.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The review petition and the writ petition failed, and the levy under the residuary schedule was upheld as constitutionally valid and applicable to pea-gravel.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute expressly levies tax on all goods not specifically exempted or classified in the scheduled lists, the residuary entry applies to goods not otherwise enumerated, and the provision is not invalid for vagueness or excessive delegation merely because it operates residually.

---