1956 (9) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....every dealer. Sub-section (b) which at first prescribed the rate at which the tax is payable at three pies per rupee was altered by Act 25 of 1954 and now reads as follows:- "(b) the tax shall be calculated at the following rates:     Rate of tax. (1) In the case of every dealer whose total turnover is Rs. 7,500 and above but not exceeding Rs. 10,000 Rs. 25 per annum. (2) In the case of every dealer whose total turnover exceeds Rs. 10,000 but does not exceed Rs. 25,000 The rate specified in item (1) on the turnover not exceeding Rs. 10,000 and two pies in the rupee on the turnover exceeding Rs. 10,000.   In the case of every dealer whose total turnover exceeds Rs. 25,000 The rate specified in item (2) on the tu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....herein. Section 3(2-A) deals with liability of persons not having a place of business in Mysore. Section 11 is, it is said, found only in the Mysore Act and that there is no provision analogous to it in the laws applicable to other States. A double restriction is imposed under the section on the collection of tax; firstly, that it cannot be collected at all by the unregistered dealers and secondly, that it can be collected by the registered dealers only in respect of goods specified in Schedule 1. The registered dealers are thus compelled to pay the tax which they are forbidden to recover from others and cannot have recourse to shifting the burden on the consumer as is usual. It is argued on behalf of petitioners that in effect and reali....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sideration is right to equality of treatment guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution and whether this is prejudiced by making a differentiation in the extent of liability between sales within and sales outside hotels of articles of food. It is not and cannot be disputed that the discrimination if arbitrary offends the Article and that the provision therefore in a taxing law as in any other law cannot have validity. What is objectionable is, not the existence of a distinction but the absence of a reasonable basis for it and a just relation between that and the object of the Act. The petitioners com- plain that this is lacking and that therefore the imposition of the tax at rates far higher than those applicable to other sellers of the s....