IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 936 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.6926/2007 .................... APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER ----------------------------- P.K.MURALEEDHARA KURUP, SUNTECH, MAMBARAM ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT ASSESSMENT), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (AA), COMMERCIAL TAXES, NINAN'S COMPLEX, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO.1597 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.936 of 2007 & W.P.(C) No.1597 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge rejecting appellant's challenge against constitutional validity of Section 6 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, which among other things provides for sales tax on dealers importing goods irrespective of their turnover. In the connected Writ Petition, subsequent year's assessment and also the constitutional validity of Section 6 is challenged by the same petitioner. Appellant/petitioner is a small scale industrial unit engaged in manufacture of paint and other items. According to the appellant/petitioner, even though his sales turnover is below Rs.10 lakhs, he is liable to pay tax under the Act only because he imports some of the raw materials from outside the State. Therefore, the contention is that the levy of tax on the appellant/petitioner is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. WA 936/07 & WPC 1597/08 2 However, we notice from the judgment that the challenge against the provision was made before the learned Single Judge as violative of Articles 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge after elaborate consideration of the judgments cited, held that there is no violation of Article 301 or 304(a) in as much as there is no restriction on freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse, guaranteed under Article 301 or discrimination with regard to tax based on the place of manufacture. If at all there is any discrimination, the same can be in respect of the discrimination of dealers i.e. between dealers sourcing the goods in Kerala and those sourcing the goods from outside Kerala because while local dealers with turnover below Rs.10 lakhs enjoy exemption, those bringing goods from outside State are liable to tax irrespective of their turnover. Similarly,manufacturers bringing raw materials from outside State also happen to be liable for tax irrespective of whether their turnover does not exceed the threshold limit of Rs.10 lakhs or not. Discrimination in regard to levy of tax based on turnover and nature of business is there in every statute because even under the KGST Act casual trader is liable to pay tax WA 936/07 & WPC 1597/08 3 irrespective of the turnover. Besides the decisions cited by the learned Single Judge, Government Pleader cited the decision of Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in S.KODAR VS. STATE OF KERALA reported in (1974) 34 STC 73. We, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the charging section on the ground of discrimination because the classification between importers and other dealers is a reasonable one. However, it is for the appellant/petitioner or representative Associations to take up the matter to the Government for appropriate amendment, if required. The Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are dismissed, but with the above observation. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms