ivil Appeal No 4879 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 12111986 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in WP No 16535 of 1986 P Rama Reddy and AVV Nair for the Appellants
C Sitaramaiah Jagan Rao DRK Reddy and TVSN Chari for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
Leave granted
This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 12th November 1986
The appellants challenged the validity of an amendment to the Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1957 hereinafter called the Act 
The appellants are dealers in tamarind in Parvathipuram in Srikakulam district a border district in Andhra Pradesh
They had purchased tama rind from the State of Orissa paying tax there and incurring expenditure in bringing the said goods to Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of sale
Under the Act tamarind was item 14 of Second Schedule and was subjected to sales tax at the point of first purchase in the State irrespective of whether it was purchased within the State or outside the State
The subject matter of challenge in this application under article 226 of the Constitution before the Andhra Pradesh High Court was the validity of an amendment to the Schedule to the Act modifying the point of taxability of tamarind in question
Prior to the amendment tamarind was taxable as mentioned hereinbefore at the first purchase point being item No 14 in Schedule II to the Act
The entry therein read as follows Description of Point of levy Rate of tax the goods 14
Tamarind 2014 At the point of 4 paise in first purchase the rupee
in the State
 425 By virtue of the amendment the said entry was amended
Tamarind which is purchased within the State was retained in IInd Schedule while tamarind purchased outside the State was transferred to 1st Schedule
After the amendment item No 14 in Schedule II and item 170 in Schedule I stood as follows SECOND SCHEDULE section No Description of goods Point of levy Rate of tax 14
Tamarind when put At the point of 4 paise in chased within the first purchase the rupee
State
in the State
FIRST SCHEDULE section No Description of Goods Point of levy Rate of tax 170 Tamarind when At the point 4 paise in obtained from out of first sale the rupee
side the State
in the State
 It appears that the result of the said amendment was that tamarind purchased outside the State was taxable at the point of first sale in the State
It was contended before the High Court that the said amendment brought about a discrimination between tamarind purchased within the State ie one produced within the State and the tamarind pur chased outside the State ie produced in other States and that the incidence of tax was more on the tamarind purchased outside the State
It was contended that it violated clause a of article 304 as also article 14 of the Constitution
Clause a of article 304 states that notwithstanding anything contained in article 301 or article 303 the legislature of State may by law impose on goods imported from other States or the Union Territories any tax to which similar goods manufactured or produced in the State are subject so however as not to discriminate between goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced
The question is whether as a result of the said amendment there has been any infraction of clause a of article 304 of the Constitu tion
We are unable to 426 accept the contention that there was any such discrimina tion
The High Court in the judgment under appeal has so held
We are of the opinion that the High Court was right
Both the tamarind purchased within and outside the State is taxed uniformly
On behalf of the appellants reliance was placed on Firm ATB Mehtao Majid and Co vs The State of Madras 14 STC 355 wherein on an analysis of the relevant provisions it was held that the provisions of rule 162 of the Madras General Sales Tax Turnover and Assessment Rules 1939 substituted in the place of the old rule wef
1st April 1955 discriminate between hides and skins imported from outside the State and those manufactured or produced inside the State and as such contravened the provisions of article 304a of the Constitution and therefore were invalid
It was reiterated by this Court that taxing laws can be re strictions on trade commerce and intercourse if they hamper the flow of trade and if these are not compensatory taxes or regulatory measures
It was further held that sales tax on hides and skins imposed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1939 and the rules framed thereunder could not be said to be a measure regulating any trade or compen satory tax levied for the use of trading facilities
The similarity contemplated by article 304a is in the nature of the quality and kind of the goods and not with respect to whether they were already the subject of tax or not
There this Court was dealing with rule 16 of the relevant Madras rules
Sub rule a of rule 16 provides that in case of untanned raw hides andor skins the tax us 31 of the Act was to be levied from the dealer who is the last pur chaser in the State
Sub rule 2 which was in two parts dealt with tanned hides and skins
Clause i of sub rule 2 provided that in case of hides and skins tanned outside the State tax shall be levied upon the dealer who in the State is the first dealer
Clause ii provided that in case of tanned hides and skins which have been tanned within the State the tax us 31 shall be levied upon a person who is the first dealer in such hides or skins
The proviso howev er declared that if the dealer proved that he had already been taxed under sub rule 1 on the untanned hides and skins he shall not be subjected to tax under sub rule 2
It was held by this Court that this rule inevitably brought about a discrimination in the quantum of tax because while the tanned hides and skins which were imported from outside the State and were sold within the State were taxed at a higher rate the hides and skins tanned within the State and sold within the State are taxed at a lower rate by virtue of the proviso
It was indeed found that there was a substantial variation between the prices of tanned and untanned goods
This Court pointed out that by virtue of the proviso the tax on 427 the latter category was in fact on the purchase price of the untanned hides and skins though ostensibly the rate of tax under sub rule 2 was the same Hence the mischief of discrimination was brought about by the proviso which said that if hides and skins are taxed within the State at raw untanned stage they shall not be taxed again at the tanned stage
But in view of the facts involved in the instant case we are unable to accept that the principles of the said decision have any scope of application to the facts of instant case
In the instant case the tamarind purchased within the State and outside the State are taxed at the same rate
But the point of taxability has necessarily to be different in both the cases
In case of tamarind purchased within the State ie produced within the State the tax is levied at the point of first purchase and in case of im ported tamarind ie purchased outside the State the tax is levied at the point of first sale in the State
It was contended by Mr P Rama Reddy learned advocate for the appellants that tax in case of imported tamarind would be more because its price will include freight charge and other State taxes
Hence it was submitted that the sales tax will also be more
That may be so but it cannot be said to be the effect of what law has amended
Tamarind will be imported only when it can be sold in the market here at the same price as the tamarind produced within the State
Only when after bearing the other  State tax and freight charges if it is able to compete with the locally produced tamarind it will normally be imported from outside the State
If there is any difference in prices because of market conditions and other factors that cannot be said to be due to discrimination prohibited by clause a of article 304 of the Constitution
In order to ensure this it would be necessary that imported goods must always be taxed at a lower rate than the corresponding goods within the State because of freight and other charges
That cannot be so
The High Court observed that tamarind is an agricultural produce and that is why it was put in Second Schedule ie to say purchase point but where it was imported and sold within the State there was no reason to tax it at the sale point
We are of the opinion that the
High Court was right
It was contended on behalf of the appellants before the High Court that imported tamarind which had suffered tax at the first sale point will again be taxed at the purchase point when purchased within the State which would amount to double taxation
Once the imported tamarind is taxed at the first sale point under the First Schedule there is no occasion for taxing it over again at the sale point under the Second Schedule
The idea of both the Schedules is to tax only at one point 428 though the point of taxability may be different under dif ferent Schedules
Our attention was drawn on behalf of the appellants to a decision of this Court in Indian Cement Ltd  Ors
vs State of Andhra Pradesh  Ors 69 STC 305
There this Court was concerned with Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act
It appears that in exercise of its powers us 91 of the Act the State Government had passed a notification on January 27 1987 reducing the rate of sales tax on sale of cement from 1375 to 4 in respect of cement manufactured by cement factories situated in the State and sold to manufac turing units situated within the State for the purpose of manufacture of cement products such as cement sheets asbes tos sheets cement flooring stones cement concrete pipes cement water and sanitary fittings concrete poles etc
On the same day the State Govt
had passed another notification us 85 of the reducing the rate of tax on inter State sale of cement to 2 with or without Form C
On February 28 1987 the State of Karnataka passed a similar notification reducing the rate of tax on inter State sale of cement from 15 to 2
The petitioners of whom some were manufacturers of cement having their manufacturing units in Tamil Nadu and others were stockists having places of business in the States of Karnataka Kerala and Tamil Nadu filed writ petitions before this Court challenging the validity of these notifications on the ground that these created trade barriers and directly im pinged upon the freedom of trade commerce and intercourse provided for in article 301 of the Constitution of India
It was held that the variations in the rates of local and inter State sales tax affected free trade and commerce and created a local preference which was contrary to the scheme of Part XIII of the Constitution of India and as such the notification were bad
This decision was rendered in the peculiar facts of that case
While the principle enunciated by the Court in the said decision there can be no dispute that taxation was a deterrent in some cases against free flow of trade and as a result of favourable or unfavourable treatment by way of taxation the course of flow of trade gets regulated either adversely or favourably and that if the scheme of Part XIII guarantees has to be preserved in the national interest it is imperative that the provisions of article 301 must be strictly complied with we are of the opinion that the ratio of the said decision in the facts and circumstances of this case would not be relevant
In our opinion the provisions of the Constitution should be strictly complied with not only with the letter but also with their spirit
Part XIII of the Constitution has to 429 be dealt with the other provisions of the Constitution
Our attention was drawn to the observations of this Court in Ms Associated Tanners Vizianagaram AP vs CTO Vizianaga ram
AP  Ors  It was reiterated there that the effect of an imposition of tax may work differently upon different dealers namely those who import goods and those who purchase the goods locally
That effect cannot be said to arise directly or as an immediate effect of the imposition of tax
It cannot be said that there was any violation of clause a of article 304 of the Constitution
We are of the opinion that in the instant case the difference in rates if any between the imported tamarind and locally produced tamarind is not as an immediate or direct result of the imposition of tax
The decision of this Court in Weston Electronics  Anr
vs State of Gujarat  Anr
  dealt in our opinion with an en tirely different situation and for the purpose of the in stant controversy cannot be of any assistance
Mr C Sitaramiah appearing for the respondents drew our attention to Rattan Lal  Co  Anr
vs The Assessing Authority  Anr  wherein this Court had reiterated that when a taxing State is not imposing rates of tax on imported goods different from rates of tax on goods manufactured or produced article 304 has no application
So long as the rate is the same article 304 is satisfied
In the instant case the tax is at the same rate and hence tax cannot be said to be higher in the case of imported goods
When the rate is applied the resulting tax may be somewhat higher but that does not contravene the equality contemplat ed by article 304 of the Constitution
In the facts and the circumstances of the case there is no ground to complain about the breach of article 14 of the Constitution
In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that the High Court was right in the view it took and this appeal must fail
The appeal is accordingly dis missed
In the facts and the circumstances of the case however we make no order as to costs
PSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The City Corporation of Bangalore invited objections from the public to the proposed levy of octroi on certain items
In a meeting of the Corporation after placing the objections on the Table and circulating the Notes of the Commissioner analysing the objections a unanimous resolu tion was passed levying the octroi
The respondents challenged the validity of the Resolu tion contending that it was passed in violation of Section 981 of the City of Bangalore Corporation Act 1949
The High Court declared the Resolution invalid holding that because of shortage of time the condition precedent for passing the resolution ie real consideration of the objections was not satisfied
Hence these appeals by the Corporation
Setting aside the judgment of the High Court and allow ing the appeals this Court HELD 1
Taxation in order to be valid must not only be authorised by a statute but also be levied or collected in strict conformity with the statute which authorises it
Where a condition precedent is laid down for statutory power being exercised it must be fulfilled before a sub ordinate authority can exercise delegated power
When the 444 statute requires that delegated power may be exercised on fulfilment of certain conditions precedent the Court would presume the regularity of the order including the fulfilment of the condition precedent
It is 1or the party who chal lenged the legality to show that the condition precedent was not in fact complied with by the authority
446H 447B 2
The Municipal Administration is coordinated to secure the vital interest of the general public
It is the function of the representative body to ascertain the local opinion and decide thereon before imposition of the tax
It has therefore to be assumed that local representatives who had taken note of the objections received in pursuance of the notice published have consciously reached the decision
Once it is clear that there had been consideration of the objec tion it is not for the Court to examine the manner in which the legislative will had been indicated
447C D 3
The Court has no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the reasons that goes into the decision or the motive that induced the delegated authority to exercise its powers
No judicial duty is laid on the authority in discharge of the statutory obligations and therefore the only question to be examined is whether the statutory provisions have been complied with
447H 448A 4
The High Court was not justified in assuming from the time factor alone that there could not have been a consider ation of the objections
It is not the function of the Court to probe into the details of the discussions and the delib erations before legislative will is seen expressed by pass ing the resolution
The connotation of the word considera tion  occuring in sub section 1 of Section 98 comprehends taking note of  or paying heed to  depending upon the nature of the subject
It may be open to the councillors to express their views even within the limited time available
No standard can be prescribed in such matters
When it is shown that the council had the opportunity to consider the objections received it has to be deemed that they had taken note of the same before reaching a decision
448H 449A B Municipal Board Hapur vs Raghuvendra Kripal and Others  Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija  Ors
vs The Collector Thane Maharashtra  Ors 1989 3 Judg ment Today 57 Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co Limited vs The State of UP and Others   Gopal Narain vs State of Uttar Pradesh  Another   followed