Discriminatory sales tax treatment of dressed hides and skins was said to invalidate the levy for part of the period.

Section 2(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Special Provisions) Act, 1963 was discussed as applying retrospectively to dressed hides and skins sold within the State. The text states that the levy was treated as discriminatory for the initial part of the relevant period because raw and dressed hides and skins were taxed differently in a manner that burdened similarly situated dealers unequally. It also states that retrospective validation was within legislative competence in 1963 and that the levy was a local sales tax, not a tax on inter-State trade or commerce. On that basis, the discriminatory operation of the provision for the earlier period was said to invalidate it to that extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 2(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Special Provisions) Act, 1963 was discriminatory and violative of the Constitution in so far as it imposed tax on dressed hides and skins sold within the State for the period 1 April 1955 to 31 March 1959. (ii) Whether the Madras Legislature lacked competence to enact the provision retrospectively for a period during which hides and skins had been declared essential goods and whether the levy was barred as relating to inter-State trade or commerce.

Issue (i): Whether section 2(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Special Provisions) Act, 1963 was discriminatory and violative of the Constitution in so far as it imposed tax on dressed hides and skins sold within the State for the period 1 April 1955 to 31 March 1959.

Analysis: The provision created a burden that was not borne equally by all dealers similarly situated. Raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins were treated as different categories for taxation, and the impugned levy operated so as to tax imported dressed hides and skins at a rate that produced discrimination when compared with the treatment of hides and skins dealt with in the State at the raw stage. The earlier invalidation of the corresponding rule in the Mehtab case was relevant because the same vice of unequal treatment persisted in substance. The Court held that the statutory scheme, as applied for the initial period ending 1 August 1957, offended the constitutional guarantee against discrimination.

Conclusion: The provision was invalid to that extent and was struck down as violating the constitutional prohibition against discriminatory taxation.

Issue (ii): Whether the Madras Legislature lacked competence to enact the provision retrospectively for a period during which hides and skins had been declared essential goods and whether the levy was barred as relating to inter-State trade or commerce.

Analysis: The legislative power to enact a retrospective validating measure was tested by the constitutional position prevailing when the Act was enacted in 1963, not by the earlier position governing the historical period covered by the levy. Since the constitutional requirement of Presidential assent had ceased to operate and the earlier declaration of essentiality had been repealed, the retrospective enactment was within legislative competence. The levy was also held to be a tax on sales within the State, not a tax on transactions in the course of inter-State trade or commerce merely because the goods had originated outside the State. The challenge based on the Central Sales Tax framework therefore failed.

Conclusion: The Legislature had competence to enact the provision retrospectively, and the levy was not invalid on the ground of inter-State trade or commerce.

Final Conclusion: The impugned provision could not stand for the initial part of the relevant period because it operated in a discriminatory manner, and the petitions were therefore allowed with consequential relief against enforcement of section 2 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxing provision that, by its practical operation, discriminates between similarly situated dealers or goods during the relevant period is invalid, even if enacted retrospectively, and retrospective legislative competence does not cure a constitutionally impermissible discriminatory levy.

---