Skip to content


H.H. Naeems and Company Vs. State of Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 1389 of 1961
Judge
Reported in[1964]15STC269(Mad)
AppellantH.H. Naeems and Company
RespondentState of Madras
Appellant AdvocateK. Rajah Iyer, Adv. for ;T.T. Srinivasan, ;A.N. Rangaswami and B.T. Seshadri, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateS. Mohan, Adv. for ;Additional Government Pleader
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredState of Madras v. Noor Mohammed
Excerpt:
- - discrimination can arise only when the like are not treated alike. if a licensed dealer got the benefit of single point tax and the unlicensed dealer was taxed on the multi-point tax basis, it was not because the provisions of the act themselves made any discrimination but because of the failure on the part of the dealer himself......and skins were liable to tax under section 3(1) and they were not entitled to the benefit of the single point scheme of taxation. the petitioner's appeal was dismissed on 15th october, 1960. by the time this happened, the law on the subject became settled by the decision of the supreme court in state of madras v. noor mohammed & co. [1960] 11 s.t.c. 570. no further appeal was taken to the tribunal or revision to this court by the petitioner. the petitioner now wants this court to quash the assessment order on the ground that it offended article 14 of the constitution.2. it seems to me that the petitioner's point of discrimination is based upon a misapprehension of the correct scope of the scheme of single point taxation under the madras general sales tax act, 1939. the general scheme.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Veeraswami, J.

1. The only point raised in this petition is the one based on Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the year 1952-53 by an order dated 15th February, 1956. The petitioner was an unlicensed dealer for the period. Nevertheless relying on the provisions of Section 6-A the petitioner was charged to tax on the basis that his transactions of sales in hides and skins were liable to tax under Section 3(1) and they were not entitled to the benefit of the single point scheme of taxation. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed on 15th October, 1960. By the time this happened, the law on the subject became settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Noor Mohammed & Co. [1960] 11 S.T.C. 570. No further appeal was taken to the Tribunal or revision to this Court by the petitioner. The petitioner now wants this Court to quash the assessment order on the ground that it offended Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. It seems to me that the petitioner's point of discrimination is based upon a misapprehension of the correct scope of the scheme of single point taxation under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The general scheme of taxation envisaged by that Act was to levy multipoint tax on each transaction of sale or purchase of goods. But this general scheme was subject to certain exceptions by way of concessions and exemptions. One such concession was to be found in Section 5(vi) of that Act, which was to the effect that subject to such conditions and restrictions including provisions as to licences, taxes on sales or purchases of hides and skins could only be levied at such single point in the series of those transactions as might be prescribed. Where a dealer in hides and skins complied with those restrictions and conditions and took out a licence, he was given the benefit of the single point tax. Where he did not do so, this Court took the view that the dealer, who had not taken out a licence would not be chargeable to tax at all on his transactions of hides and skins. The Supreme Court did not accept that view in State of Madras v. Noor Mohammed & Co. [1960] 11 S.T.C. 570, but held that the only effect of not complying with the restrictions and conditions of Section 5 was that the transactions became chargeable to tax under Section 3(1) read with Section 6-A.

3. Looked in that background, there is little substance in the point based on discrimination. Discrimination can arise only when the like are not treated alike. There can be no comparison between licensed dealers and unlicensed dealers with reference to tax liability. While the multi-point tax was the general principle, the concession of single point was made available by the Act but subject to certain restrictions and conditions. It is not the case of the petitioner that even though he complied with those conditions and restrictions, he was denied the benefit of the single point tax while those similarly situated were given that benefit. If a concession was given in those terms and the dealer did not comply with the requisites for getting that concession, hardly could there be any complaint of discrimination.

4. There is also another way of looking at it. If a licensed dealer got the benefit of single point tax and the unlicensed dealer was taxed on the multi-point tax basis, it was not because the provisions of the Act themselves made any discrimination but because of the failure on the part of the dealer himself. I consider, therefore, that the impugned order cannot be held to be discriminatory.

5. The petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //