TRIPURA CHEMISTS AND DRUGISTS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.5,97 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 207/1995.

(2.) The Constitutional validity of the Tripura Additional Sales Tax Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as the Amended Act was assailed in the above Civil Rule questioning the legisiative competence of the State Legislature. The vires of the Act was afso challenged as violative of Article 14,19(JXg) and 304 (b) of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge on overall consideration of the facts and the issues raised before it dismissed the writ petition as meritless. Hence the appeal.

(3.) Mr. K.N.Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.B.Dutta, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee and Mr. S. Dasgupta virtually echoed the same arguments which were raised by Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Counsel before the learned Single Judge. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr.Counsel submitted that the impugned legislation is pith and substance a tax on income and not taxes on the safe or purchase of goods as per entry 54 of the State List-II. According to the learned Sr. Counsel the State Legislature in the garb of Additional Sales Tax levied tax on income and therefore only the parliament has the legislative competence to legislate on the subject under entry No. 82 of the Union List. Mr. Bhattacharjee secondly contended that the impugned legislation levying tax on dealer whose taxable turn over for a year exceeds 10 lakhs of Rupees is arbitrary and discriminatory and therefore violative of the constitutional norms enshrined under Article 14 of theConstitution. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee different rates of tax on sate on the same goods is imposed by the legislature on the basis of the turnover of the dealer. The learned senior counsel next submitted that by Section 2(2) of the Act the dealer is prohibited from collecting the additional tax payable under the Act from the purchaser is violative of Article 19(1) (g). Mr. Bhattarcharjee also submitted that Section 2(2) manifests that the levy in question avowedly is a tax on the income of the dealer which the dealer is required to pay; no matter whether it could recoup the cost and make profit or not, Mr. K.N.Bhattacharjee, the learned Sr. Counsel lastly submitted that the impugned legislation upon the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse and for want of assent of the President under the proviso to Clause (b) of Article 304 of the Constitution impugned piece of legislation is ultra-vires of the Constitution. In support of his contention the learned senior counsel referred the following decision of the Supreme Court of India: