THE K.C.P. LTD. Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Petition, the petitioners have assailed the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 6 -C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax, 1957, for short "the A.P.G.S.T. Act" as amended by the amending Act 22 of 1995. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that the amended Section 6 -C of the Act has no application in respect of transactions of sale or purchase of articles which are specifically dealt with under item Nos. 157 and 188 of the First Schedule to the A.P.G.S.T. Act, whether such articles are sold separately or along with other articles and if they are found to be also applicable to all transactions of sale and purchase of articles specified under item Nos. 157 and 188 of the First schedule to the Act, then the said provisions of Section 6 -C are liable to be declared as ultra vires of Article 14, 19(1)(G) and 301 of the Constitution being arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 6 -C of the A.P.G.S.T. Act as amended by Act No. 22 of 1995 should fail in view of the judgment of this Court in Raasi Cement Ltd. & U.V. Krishnam Raju Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, 24 APSTJ 100 wherein the constitutional validity of the provisions was upheld by this Court. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that in Raasi Cement's case (1 supra) though this Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6 -C of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, on consideration of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Sheet Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 74 STC 379 (SC) and Vasavadatta Cements Vs. State of Karnataka : 101 STC 168 (SC), directed the assessing authority to determine in each case the ingredients of the contract of sale or agreement for sale relating to the container and also the intention of the parties in accordance with the judgment in Raasi Cement's case (1 supra) and therefore in the case of the petitioner also, such a direction be issued to the assessing authority.

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes would contend that having due regard to the clear and unambiguous provisions of Section 6 -C of the A.P.G.S.T. Act and also the judgment of the Apex Court in Premier Breweries Vs. State of Kerala : (1998) 108 STC 598 where the Apex Court has had an occasion to deal with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Sheel's case (2 supra) and Vasavadatta Cements's case (3 supra), there is nothing left to the discretion of the assessing authority to determine the ingredients of the contract or sale or agreement of sale relating to the container.