SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(SC) 657

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJI., S. RANGANATHAN AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.
M/s. Video Electronics Pvt Ltd., and another,Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another, Respondents
Writ Petn. Nos.665 of 1988 with 761 and 803 of 1988 (with W.P.Nos. 1016 and 1140 of 1988 & SLP (C) Nos.9099, 9063, 7344, 9100 of 1988 and W.P. No.1124 of 1988 & C.M.P. No.9062 of 1989 and W.P.Nos.69-70 of 1989, I.A. No.1 of 1989), D/- 22.12.1989.
WITH
Weston Electronics Ltd and another, Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another, Respondents
WITH
M/s. Niksin Marketing Association and others,Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents

Advocates:
A.C.GULATI, A.K.SRIVASTAVA, A.S.NAMBIYAR, Anil Kumar, B.R.AGRAWAL, C.M.NAYAR, C.S.VAIDYANATHAN, G.L.SANGHI, H.K.PURI, HALIDA KHATUN, HARISH N.SLAVE, KAILASH VASUDEV, MANOHAR LAL SACHDAV, P.G.GOKHALE, P.K.MANOHARAN, P.N.MISHRA, R.B.HATHIKHANAVALA, R.S.RANA, RAJA RAM AGARWAL, Rajiv Datta, S.C.Dhanda, S.C.Manchanda, S.R.Bhatt, S.R.Setia, Sanjay Parikh, SANTHANAM, SEITA VAIDIALINGAM, SULTAN SINGH, VRINDA GROVER

Headnote:

Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 - Section 4A - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Section 8(5) – Constitution of India, 1950 Article 32, 19(1)(g), 14, 301, 305, 302, 303, 304, 305 and 255 - Harmonising - Economic unity – Partnership Firm- Petition challenges constitutional validity of notification issued by Uttar Pradesh Govt. u/s. 4A of Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 - A prior notification was superseded by aforesaid notification - It also challenges constitutional validity of notification No issued by Uttar Pradesh Govt. u/s. 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 which superseded a previous notification - It is stated that petitioners carry on business of selling cinematographic films and other equipments like projectors, sound recording and reproducing equipment, industrial X-ray films, graphic art films, photo films etc. in State of Uttar Pradesh and in Delhi - Petitioners sell goods upon receiving these from manufacturers from outside State of U.P. They are dealers on behalf of those manufacturers - Whether or not their impact on trade is immediate or mediate, direct or remote, adopts, in our opinion, an extreme approach which cannot - Whether impugned law in a given case affects directly said movement or indirectly and remotely affects - Whether difference in rates per se discriminates so as to come within Arts. 301 and 304(a) of Constitution – Held, Development on parity is one of commitments of Constitution. Directive principles enshrined in Arts. 38 & 39 must be harmonised with economic unity as well as economic development of developed and under-developed areas - In that light on Art. 14 of Constitution it is necessary that prohibitions in Art. 301 and scope of Art 304(a) & (b) should be understood and construed - Constitution is a living organism and the latent meaning of expressions used can be given effect to only if a particular situation arises - In instant writ petition in view of terms of notification impugned and facts and circumstances stated in affidavit of the State Government as well as the intervenors Goa and Pondicherry, being comparatively under-developed in electronic, industry, in our opinion, it cannot be said that there was violation of either Part XIII of Constitution or Art. 14 of the Constitution - Court have also considered with petition N o. M / s Disco Electronics Ltd. & Anr. v. State of U. P. & Others, and in light of facts and circumstances and averments made in background of principles reiterated, Court are unable to sustain challenge to impugned notifications - In these matters Court had advantage of having views of intervenors and we have considered submission made on their behalf - Petitions dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

The Supreme Court's ruling emphasizes that granting limited exemptions to new industries within a state for a defined period, aimed at promoting industrial development, does not automatically constitute "hostile discrimination." Such exemptions are viewed as legitimate measures to support economic growth and regional development, provided they are based on rational and justifiable reasons. The Court recognizes that these incentives are part of a broader strategy to achieve economic parity and development among different regions.

This understanding allows the State to justify the absence of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for importers by framing the exemptions as temporary and targeted measures to encourage new industries, rather than as discriminatory practices. As long as these exemptions are rational, non-discriminatory, and serve the legitimate objective of fostering industrialization, they are deemed valid and do not violate constitutional principles of equality or non-discrimination.


Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJI. :- In these several writ petitions, we are concerned with the question of harmonising the power different States in the Union of India to legislate and/or give appropriate directions within the parameters of the subjects in List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution with the principle of economic unity envisaged in Part XIII of the Constitution of India. We are also concerned with the provisions of exemption, encouragement/ incentives given by different States to boost up or help economic growth and development in those States, and in so doing the attempt of the States to give preferential treatment to the goods manufactured or produced in those States. The question essentially is the same in all the matters but the question has to be appreciated in the context of the provisions and the fact situation of the different States involved in these writ petitions. It would, therefore, be appropriate to first deal with Writ Petition No. 803/88 (Niksin Marketing Associate & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.) which is under Article 32 of the Constitution by four petitioners.

2. Petitioner No. 1 in W.P. No. 803/88 is a partnership firm carrying on business in New Delhi. Petitioner No. 2 is its partner and petitioner No. 3 is another partnership business carrying on business at Kanpur in U. P. consisting of petitioner No. 4 and other partners. The petition challenges the constitutional validity of notification No. ST-117558/X-9(208)-1981 U.P. Act XV-48 Order 85, dated 26th December, 1985 issued by Uttar Pradesh Govt. u/s. 4A of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948. A prior notification No. ST-II/604-X-9(208)-1981 U.P. Act XV-48-Order 85, dt. 29th January, 1985 was superseded by the aforesaid notification dt. 26th December, 1985. It also challenges the constitutional validity of notification No. ST-11/8202/X-9(208)-1981 issued by Uttar Pradesh Govt. u/s. 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 which superseded a previous notification. It also challenges the constitutional validity of S. 4A of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 as substituted by U.P. Act 22 of 1984 and also S. 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and consequentially all actions and proceedings taken by the respondent u/ s. 5A of the said Act. The respondents to this application are the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Union of India, and the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh.

3. It is stated that the petitioners carry on the business of selling cinematographic films and other equipments like projectors, sound recording and reproducing equipment, industrial X-ray films, graphic art films, photo films etc. in the State of Uttar Pradesh and in Delhi. The petitioners sell the goods upon receiving these from the manufacturers from outside the State of U.P. They are dealers on behalf of those manufacturers. The petitioners are dealers of Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd., a Government of India undertaking. In U.P. there is a single point levy of sales tax. The State of U.P. had issued two notifications u/s. 4A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and u/s. 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act exempting new units of manufacturers as defined in the Act in respect of the various goods for different periods ranging from 3 to 7 years as the case may be, from payment of any sales tax. These notifications are annexed and terms thereof are set out in Annexures A-1 and, B- 1 to the writ petition.

4. The notification dated 26th December, 1985 stated, inter alia:

"The Governor is pleased to direct that in respect of any goods manufactured in an industrial unit, which is a new unit as defined in the aforesaid Act of 1948 established in the areas mentioned in column 2 of the Table given below, the date of starting production whereof falls on or after the first day of October, 1982 but not later than 31 st March, 1990, no tax under the aforesaid Act of 1956 shall be payable by the manufacturer thereof on the turnover of sales on such goods for the period specified i


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top