JUDGMENT

B.Sudershan Reddy, J. -- This batch of appeals arises out of a common order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby and whereunder the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants challenging the constitutional validity of the explanation to the definition of the term person defined in clause (j) of Section 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987 (Act No.22 of 1987),for short the Act , as well as Explanation No.I to the First Schedule of the said Act as amended by Act No.29 of 1996 have been dismissed. In order to consider as to whether the said provisions of the Act suffer from any vice of unconstitutionality we shall briefly refer to the facts.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The appellant in C.A.No.2400/02 is M/s. Shaw Wallace and Company Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It has its principal place of business at Secunderabad in A.P. State. In addition to its principal place of business at Secunderabad the appellant has branches and stock points where it transacts its business and stores its goods. At the material time, the appellant had about 74 stock points, every stock point has been duly recorded with the registering authority under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act. It is aggrieved by the notice issued by the first respondent requiring the appellant to pay profession tax at Rs.2500/- for each of its branches in A.P. for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The respondent altogether demanded a sum of Rs.3,42,000/- at the rate of Rs.2500/- per annum for each of the branches of the appellant Company. The first respondent obviously relied on the Explanation No. I to the First Schedule to the Act defining the expression person which we shall notice little later. It is under those circumstances the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for grant of appropriate reliefs.

3. The appellant in C.A.No.1994/02 is a banking Company engaged in banking activities having the network of over 300 branches spread throughout India. The appellant altogether at the relevant time had branches in 17 places within the State of Andhra Pradesh. It had obtained the certificate of enrolment from the first respondent at Hyderabad where it has its principal place of business. The appellant was paying Profession Tax in respect of principal branch at Hyderabad alone. The first respondent herein issued similar notices requiring the appellant to pay Profession Tax of Rs.2500/- to be paid by each of its branches in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

4. The appellant in C.A.No.1995/02 is a partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of petroleum products. It has its principal place of business at Secunderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In addition to its principal business premises, it has other petroleum outlets outside Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The first respondent issued similar notices demanding Profession Tax by treating the various branches of the appellant firm as a different person at the rate of Rs.2500/- per annum. Each of the appellant s branch has been treated as a separate person for the purposes of levy and realization of tax under the provisions of the Act.

5. The Writ Petitions filed by each of the appellant challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of the said Act referred to hereinabove came up before a Division Bench of the A.P. High Court which has upheld the validity of the provisions.

RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND SCHEME OF THE ACT

6. Clause (1) of Article 276 of the Constitution enables a State Legislature to enact a Legislation imposing tax on professions, trades, callings and employments and further provides that such law made by a State Legislature shall not be declared invalid on the ground it rela