Holding

The classification and differential tax rates for bread and biscuits are rational and constitutionally valid, and the challenges under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) are not sustainable.

Summary

The petitioners, Sadiq Bakery and others, filed writ petitions challenging the imposition of sales tax and surcharge on bread, rusk and bun under the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1957, arguing that bread and biscuits constitute a homogeneous class and should be taxed at the same rate. They contended that the differential rates under Schedule I, Item No. 117 and Item No. 129 violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, amounted to double taxation with excise duty, and that the surcharge was invalid. The Court examined whether the legislative classification was rational and whether the tax rates were arbitrary. Relying on the principle that the economic wisdom of a tax lies within the exclusive domain of the legislature, the Court held that the classification was reasonable and the tax structure did not infringe constitutional guarantees. Consequently, all contentions were rejected and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the differential tax rates for bread (Item 117) and biscuits (Item 129) under the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1957 violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the multiple point tax on bread and biscuits infringes Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Whether the imposition of both excise duty and sales tax on the same items constitutes double taxation.
Whether the surcharge imposed under the Act is constitutionally valid.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1957s. Schedule I Item No. 117, s. Schedule I Item No. 129
Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 19(1)(g)

Subjects

sales taxdifferential taxationArticle 14Article 19(1)(g)constitutional validitytax classificationwrit petitionbreadbiscuitssurcharge

Judgment

SADIQ BAKERY ETC.
A
v.
STATE OF A.P. & ORS.

NOVEMBER 24, 1987

[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 19(1)(b)-Sales
Tax-Different rates for bread and biscuits-A. P. Sales Tax Act, 1952
Schedule I Item Nos. 117 and 129-Validity of.

Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1957: Schedule I Item Nos. I I7 C
& 129-Bread and biscuits-Imposition of sales tax at different rates,
whether constitutionally valid and legal.

Statutory Interpretation: Economic wisdom of a tax or lack of
it-Within the exclusive domain of the legislature-Court to see that
capacity to pay tax increases by and large with increase of receipts. D
i
In a batch of Writ Petitions filed in this Court the petitioners
challenged the imposition of sales tax and surcharge on bread, rusk
and bnn under the A.P. Sales Tax Act, 1957 as illegal, contending that
'y bread and biscuits belonged to one homogeneous class but had been
treated differently for purposes of taxation under Schedule I, Item E
No. 117 and Item No. 129of1the Act, that the purchasers and sellers of
bread and biscuits had been differently taxed, and that the multiple
point tax violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Dismissing the writ peti1tions,
F
\. HELD: The economic wisdom of a tax or lack of it are within
the exclusive domain of the legislature. The only question for
the Court to consider is whether there is rationality in that behalf
of the legislature that capacity to pay the tax increased by and large
with the increase of receipts. From any point of view, there is rationa-
lity in this proposition. It is sound commonsense and is in consonance G
with social justice. Therefore, the challenge to the imposition, under
Article 14 as well as Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not sus-
tainable. [9D-F]

State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Nalla Raja Reddy & Ors.,
[1967] 3 SCR 28; New Menek Chowk Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. H

7
I
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

Ltd. and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad ~
A
and Others., [1967] 2 SCR 679; Annapurna Biscuit (Mfg.) Co. and
~
Another v. The State of U.P. and Another, [1975] 35 S.T.C 127 and
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Another Etc. v. State of Bihar and
Others, [1983] SCR 130, referred to.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 5117/
B
81, 7340/81, 3656-84/82, 6381-82, 6951-52/82, 8010-19/82, 8108-11/82,
9019-20/82, 5241-60/83, 1734-35/83 and 559-560/83. r
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

B. Kanta Rao for the Petitioners. ~
c y

C. Seetharamiah, T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. Vrinda Grover, Ch. 'I
Badri Nath, A.K. Sanghi, G.S. Chatterjee P.N. Mishra, A.V.
Rangam, Pramod Swarup, D. Goburdhan and M.N. Shroff for the
Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
'
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

W.P. Nos: 5117/81, 3656-84/82, 5241-5260/83. & 7340/81 . '-(.

E These four batches of Writ Petitions challenge the ill)position of
sales tax on bread, rusk and bun under the A.P. Sales Tax Act, 1957
as illegal. The main and the first contention was that the bread and
biscuits belong to one homogeneous class but these have been diffe-
rently treated for taxation under Schedule I, Item No. 117 and
Schedule I, Item No. 129 of the said Act. In other words, the conten-
F tion of the petitioners is that the bread and biscuits are the same,
they should not be differently taxed. The purchasers and sellers of
bread and biscuits have been differently taxed. In support of this
contention reliance was placed on certain decisions of this Court,
namely:-

G State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Na/la Raja Reddy & Ors.,
[ 1967] 3 SCR 28; New Manek Chowk Spinning and Weaving Mills Co.
Ltd. and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad
and Others, [1967] 2 SCR 679. We do not find any proposition in
those decisions in support of this contention of the petitioners. The
decision of th~ Allahabad High Court in Annapurna Biscuit (MfK.)
H Co. and Another v. The State of U.P. and Another, [1975] 35 S.T.C.
SAD!Q BAKERY ETC. v. STATE OF A.P. [MUKHARJI, J.) 9

127 does not deal with this contention at all. A

The second contention sought to be raised was that the multiple
point tax violates Article 19( l)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioners
being Bakeries, this contention is not open to the petitioners.

The third contention sought to be raised was that excise duty B
and sales tax are imposed on the same items. This also does not arise
in the case of the petitioners who are Bakeries. Apart from that the
taxable events in these two impositions are different. So this conten-
tion cannot in any event be raii;ed.

The fourth contention sought to be raised was the surcharge. c
This point in our opinion does not arise. Furthermore this point is
concluded by the observations of this Court in the case of Hoechst
Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Another Etc. v. State of Bihar and Others,
[1983] 3 S.C.R. 130. Indeed all these contentions raised on behalf of
the petitioners have been negatived by this Court in the aforesaid
decision. D
i

We reiterate that the economic wisdom of a tax or lack of it are
within the exclusive domain of the legislature. The only question for
the Court to consider it whether there is rationality in that behalf of
)-·
the legislature that capacity to pay the tax increases by and large with
an increase of receipts. From any point of view there is rationality in E

- this proposition. It is sound commonsense. It is in consonance with
social justice to which we are committed by our Constitution.

. J
,(

In that view of the matter the challenge to the imposition under
Article 14 as well as Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution are not
sustainable. F

These Writ Petitions must fail and are dismissed accordingly.
There will be no order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, are vacated.
W.P. Nos. 6381-82/82, 6951-52/82, 8010-19/82 8108-ll/82, 9019-20/
-! 82, 1734-35/83 & 559-560/83.
G
In view of the Judgment in W.P. Nos. 5111i81, 3656-84/82,
5241-5260/83 and 7340/81, these petitions must also fail and are
accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

N.P.V. Petitions dismissed.