Petitions Civil Nos
5117 81 734081 3656 8482 6381 82 6951 5282 8010 1982 8108 1182 90 19 2082 5241 6083 1734 3583 and 559 56083
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
B Kanta Rao for the Petitioners
C Seetharamiah TVSN Chari Ms Vrinda Grover Ch
Badri Nath AK Sanghi GS Chatterjee PN Mishra AV Rangam Pramod Swarup D Goburdhan and MN Shroff for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
WP
Nos 511781 3656 8482 5241 526083
 734081 These four batches of Writ Petitions challenge the imposition of sales tax on bread rusk and bun under the AP 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 differently treated for taxation under Schedule I Item No 117 and Schedule I Item No 129 of the said Act
In other words the contention 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 State of Andhra Pradesh  Anr
vs Nalla Raja Reddy  Ors   New Manek Chowk Spinning and Weaving Mills Co Ltd and Ors
vs Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and others  We do not find any proposition in those decisions in support of this contention of the petitioners
The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Annapurna Biscuit Mfg Co and Another vs The State of UP and Another 1975 35 STC 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 191g 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 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 contention cannot in any event be raised
The fourth contention sought to be raised was the surcharge
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
vs State of Bihar and others 1983 3 SCR 130
Indeed all these contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners have been negatived by this Court in the aforesaid decision
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 this proposition
It is sound commonsense
It is in consonance with social justice to which we are committed by our Constitution
In that view of the matter the challenge to the imposition under Article 14 as well as Article 191g of the Constitution are not sustainable
These Writ Petitions must fail and are dismissed accordingly
There will be no order as to costs
Interim orders if any are vacated WP Nos
6381 8282 6951 5282 8010 1982 8108 1182 9019 20 82 1734 3583  559 56083
In view of the Judgment in WP Nos 511781 3656 8482 524 1 526083 and 73408 1 these petitions must also fail and are accordingly dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
NPV Petitions dismissed


Summary:
 Coal lying at the Pusauli Railway Station was fraudulently removed by some person giving out his name as Shambhu Tiwari a coal contractor
A criminal case was registered but on account of absence of reliable evidence final report was submitted
During the preliminary enquiry held by the Department it was found that Chandrama Tewari the appellant who was posted as a fireman at Moghulsarai in the Northern Railway had removed the coal posing himself as Shambhu Tiwari
A charge sheet was issued to the appellant
An Enquiry Officer was appointed before whom evidence was recorded
The appellant was afforded full opportunity of cross examining the witnesses
The Enquiry Officer held the appellant guilty of the charges framed against him
The punishing authority accepted the report of the enquiry officer and passed orders dismissing the appellant from service
The appellant filed a civil suit for a declaration that the punishment of dismissal was illegal and unconstitutional mainly on the ground that the enquiry had been held in violation of the principles of natural justice and he was denied reasonable opportunity of defence inasmuch as a copy of paper No 5 mentioned in the Memo of charges had not been supplied to him
The trial court decreed the suit
The decree of the trial court was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge
On a second appeal by the Union of India the High Court set aside the decisions of the subordinate courts holding that the appellant had been afforded reasonable opportunity of defence and there had been no violation of the principles of natural justice in the enquiry
The appellant appealed to this Court against the order of the High Court
Dismissing the appeal the court 1103  HELD It is not necessary that each and every document must be supplied to the delinquent government servant facing charges instead only material and relevant documents are necessary to be supplied to him
If a document even though mentioned in the Memo of charges is not relevant to the charges or if it is not referred to or relied upon by the enquiry officer or the punishing authority in holding the charges proved against the government servant no exception can be taken to the validity of the proceedings or the order passed on the ground of non supply of the copy of the order
If a document is not used against the party charged the ground of violation of principles of natural justice cannot be successfully raised
Violation of the principles of natural justice arises only when a document a copy of which may not have been supplied to the party charged is used in recording findings of guilt against him
1105G H 1106A B Copy of paper No 5 mentioned in the charge sheet was not supplied to the appellant and he was not permitted to inspect the same
But that document was not considered or relied upon by the enquiry officer in recording the findings against the appellant
Therefore the paper No 5 was not a material or relevant document and denial of a copy of that document did not prejudice the appellant and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice involved in the case
The enquiry was fair
1109D E State of Madhya Pradesh vs Chintaman AIR 1961 SC 1623 Trilokinath vs Union of India and Ors  State of Assam  Anr
vs Mahendra Kumar Das  Ors   State of Punjab vs Bhagat Ram   State of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohd Sharif AIR 1982 SC 937 and Kashinath Dikshita vs Union of India and Ors  relied upon by the appellant