Holding

The U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961 is a valid exercise of the State’s power to levy a purchase tax under Entry 54 of List II and does not violate Article 14 or encroach on Parliament’s exclusive jurisdiction.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961, which imposed a tax of Rs.1.25 paise per quintal on sugarcane purchased by factories and 50 paise per quintal on khandsari units. The petitioners argued that the Act was ultra‑vires because sugarcane is a raw material for a "controlled industry" (Entry 52, List I) and therefore only Parliament could legislate, that the tax was in substance an excise duty, and that taxing by weight rather than price discriminated between unequal entities violating Article 14. The Court held that the Act falls within the State’s power under Entry 54 of List II to levy a purchase tax, that it is not colourable excise, and that the classification of factories and units is reasonable and does not breach the equality clause. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961, is ultra‑vires the State legislature under Entry 52 of List I (controlled industry).
Whether the tax is a colourable excise duty infringing Parliament’s exclusive power under Entry 84 of List I.
Whether the differential rates and weight‑based levy constitute unreasonable classification violating Article 14.
Whether the State has competence to impose a purchase tax under Entry 54 of List II.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 13, s. Article 14, s. Article 141, s. Article 19, s. Article 24, s. Article 246(1), s. Entry 52 List I, s. Entry 54 List II
U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956
U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961s. 3, s. 3A, s. 3B
U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953

Subjects

purchase taxsugarcanecontrolled industryArticle 14classificationstate taxationexcise dutyconstitutional lawList IList IIweight‑based tax

Judgment

769

GANGA SUGAR CO. LTD., ETC.
v.
STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS ETC.
September 20, 1979
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., V. R. KRISHNA IYER, N. L. UNTWALJA, B
P. N. SHINGHAL AND. A. D. KosHAL, JJ.J
U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961 Sections 3, 3A, 3B-Validity of.

Constitution of India-Sales Tax Entry 54 List II-Drafting of legislation
on "Controlled Industry" by ,the State-Validity of-
• c
These appeals arise from a common demand for tax by the State from a
number of Sugar Mills on the purchase of Sugarcane at a rate regulated by
weight and not on value. The Cess under the U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956
'fl.'as declared ultra-vires \Vhich resulted in the enactment of Sugarcane Purchase
' Tax Act, 1961. In a fiscal sense, the Purchase Tax Act, is a reincarnation
of the Cess Act, but in a legislative sense, it is an independent statute with
a different source of power, impact and strLJcture. The tax in question is a D
successor to the Cess \vhich \Vas struck down but jurisprudentially, the levies are
different in character and attributes and. constitutionally the1 imposts derive from
different legislative entties and have to be tested bY'. different standards. The1 Act
by Section 3 imposes a rate of tax at the rate of Rs. 1.25 paise per quintal of
sugarcane purchased by a factory owner, the corresponding rate for a "unit'~
being paisc 50. Under Section 3(2) of the Act, the charge is on the purchase
trahsaction payable by the O\Vner of the factory or unit "on such date" at such E
t place and in such instalment as may be prescribed.

'fb_e .appellant had challenged the charge of tax. The High Court dis·
missed the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioners have not supplied
for any period figures of actual prices paid by them, actual quantity of cane
crushed, actual quantity of juice derived, actual quantity of sugar produced and
their earnings and, therefore, it was not possible to take the view that tax by p
weight was unfair and inequitable. The High Court further held that tax
by weight had fairer relation to the production of sugar by earnings of a factory

r than tax. by price ind consequently no one could complain that the impugned
provisions treated unequals as equals. Equal crushing attracts equal tax.

On appeal to this Court, it \Vas argued on behalf of the appeliants that (i)
the scheme and sections of the Act are ultra-vires (ii) the charge of tax is bad G
bec.ause in its true character it is a legislation in respect Of "Controlled
Jndu~try" and this power belongs exclusively to Parliament under Entry 52 of
List I (Seventh Schedule) of the Constitution, (iii) there is discrimination bet~
we¢n ~ugar factories and khands-ari units by the impost of differential rates of
fftx and liability is computed by the weight of the cane· as distinguished from
its monetary value, there is an inevitable arbitrariness built into the texture of
th~ s~heme and (iv), the Act, masked as Purchase Tax, in essence askS for an
H
Excis_e Duty on sugar-manufacture and is, therefore, invalid as colourable
legislation.
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A HELD: (i) This Court cannot lose sight of the all-India impact when the
law is laid down under Article 141 of the Constitut.ion and judgments of this
Court are decisional between litigants but declaratory for the nation. The
scheme of the Act is simple and workable. It is undisputed that sugar industry
is a controlled industry within the meaning of Entry 52, List I of Schedule, and
therefore, the legislative power of Parliament covers enactments 'vith regard to
industries having regard to Article 246 ( 1) of the Constitution. Entry 54 in
8 List II of the Seventh Schedule, empowers the State legislature to legislate for
taxes on purchase of goods and so if the Act under consideration is attracted,
in pith and substance by this entry, legislative incompetence cannot void the
Act.[774 E-F, 781 G-H, 782 A]

(ii) The contention that the charge of tax is bad because in iu. true charac-
ter it is a legislation in respect of controlled industry and which power belongs
c exclusively• to Parliament under Entry 52 of List I has no force. Tika Ram's
case deals with the identical question of "controlled industry' 1 vis-a-vis U.P.
Legislation regulating Sugarcane supply and purchase under the U.P. Sugarcane
(Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. That statute reserved or
assigned to sug3r factories· specified cane purchasing centres f0r the purpme.
This regimentation of sugarcane growers and regulation of cane supplies to
specified millers by a State enactment was attacked on the precise giound that
D sugar being a "controlled industry" any enactment affecting such industry
including the regulation of supplies of raw inaterials thereto was taboo. The
plea was dismissed as specious, and the appeals under this Court's consideration
are a fortiori cases where the rejection of the contention can be more confi-
dently made. [782 C, F-H, 783 A] .

ulndustry" as a legislative topic has a large and liberal import, true. But
F what peripherally affects cannot be confused with what goes to the heort. An
acquisition of land for sugar mills or of sugar mills may affect the indsutry but
is not an action in the legislative field forbidden for the States. Sales tax on
raw materials going to a factory may affect the costing process of the manufac-
ture' but is not legislation on industrial process or allied matters. Indeed, if
the State Legislatur~ cannot go anywhere near measures which may affect
topics reserved for Parliament a situation of reducao Od absurtfu1n may be
reached. [780 B-C]
•
Ch. Tikka Ram's case [1956] SCR 393, Shyamkant Lal [1956] SCR 427,
Kanan Devan Hills Produc• Company Ltd. [1973] 1 S.C.R. 357 followe.i.

(iii) The contention that there is discrimination between sugar factories_
and khandsari unils by the impost of differential rates of tax and that when a
G purchase tax liability is computed by the weight of the eaue as distinguished
from its monetary value, there is an inevitable arbit.rariness built into the texture
of the scheme, has no force. Neither in intent nor in effect is there any dis-
criminatory treatment discernible to the constitutional eye. Price is surely a
safe guide but other methods are not necessarily vocational. It depends
Prai;tical considerations of the Administration, traditional practices id the Tratle,
othe<" economic pros and eons enter the verdict but, after a judicial generosity
H is extended to the legislative wisdom, if there is writ on the statute pervenity,
'madn..a' in the method or gross disparity, judicial credulity may snap and !he
measure may meet with its funeral. This Court has uniformly held that dassi-
GANGA SUGAR CO. V. U.P. STATE 771

<fl.cation for taxation and the application of Article 14, in that context, must be A
viewed liberally•. not meticulously. [786 F-H, 787 B-D]

Murthy Match Works case, [1974] 3 S.C.R. 121, applied,

It is well established that classification is primarily for the legislature and
becomes a judicial issue only when the legislation bears on its bosom obvious
..condemnation by way of caprice or irrationality. (789 A] B
(iv) The contention that the Act masked as Purchase Tax, in essence asks
\for an Excise Duty on sugar manufacture and is therefore invalid as colourable
legislation has no force. Tax on: sale of purchase must be on the occurrence
-0f a taxing event of sale transaction. Beyond that is left to the free play of the
legistature, subject, of course, to the contra-indication about capricious, arbitrary
or irrational features. It is a superstition, cultivated by familiarity, to consider
that all sales-tax must necessarily have nexus with the price of the commodity.
c
~ Price ao; basis is not only usual but also· safe to avoid uneycn, unequal burdens,
although it is conceivable that a legislature can regard prices which fluctuate
frequently, as too impractical to tailor the purchase tax. It may even.be, in rare
cases, iniquitous to link purchase tax with price, if more sensible bases can be
found. 'Supposing a legislature classifie5 ~ales tax on the basis of human cate-
goric$ and reduces the rate or exempts the tax; in respect of abject destitutes, or D
·Starving flood victims or notoriously hazardous habitations, with respect to neces-
sity <X. life. Such differentiation cannot be castigated as disc1imina"tion out of
hand. It is common and commonsense that reliable standard is the price, although
in regard to customs duties there are still items levied on the nature of the
goods rather than its vfllue in money. For the present, it is sufficient to state that
the practice bas been to impose purchase tax by weight of cane. Also, in
"Weight of cane, its sucrose content and its price have a close nexus, although, E
·theoretically, they may appear unconnected. Unequals cannot be treated
eqo.ally since mechanical uniformity may become unmitigated injustice. Khand-
sari units are cottage industries unlike sugar factories and need legislative
11uccour for survival. Their economy justifies State action, classifying them as
apart from factories and we fail to appreciate the flaw in the scheme on thi~
score. [789 F-H, 790 A-B, F-G] '
Nothing more than prevention of escapement of purchase tax on cane is
F
dGlle and what is done is legitimately incidental to the taxing power. Peri-
phecal similarity between purchase tax and excise levy does not spell esoential
sameness. Sugarcane tax operates in the neighbourhood of sugar excise but
-prt1Enllty is not identity. Tho tax is only on purchase of cane, not its conver-
siOO. into sugar. If the miller bas his own cane farm and crushes it, he has no
~ tax to pay but cannot escape excise duty if any. Again if cane is
G
pm-chased 'by a miller and it is later robbed or destroyed before sugar is manu-
factured, the State tax is exigible although excise on production is not A
~cacious appreciation of the implications of purchase and production dis-
pels ~ion on this issue. To buy new prcxtuce is a step preliminary to
m•~cture but is not part of manufactrue. [791 D-F]

ClVJL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 712 of 1972. 0
From the Judgment and Order dated 21-2-1972 of the Allahabad
·Hi!l Court in CiVil Misc. Writ No. 5271/71.
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (1980] 1 S.C.R.

A Civil Appeal Nos. 962-964 of 1972 ·
From the Judgments and Orders dated 14-2-1972/21-2-1972 of
the Allahabad High Court in Civil Writ No. 335/71, 4778/71, and
3334/171.
Ovil Appeal No. 1013 of 1972.
\ B
From the Judgment and Order dated 14-2-1972 of. the Allahabad
High Conrt in Civil Misc. Writ No. 2791/71.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1063-1065 of 1972.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21/122-2-1972 of the Allaha-
C bad High Court in Civil Writ Nos. 572, 843 and 1169 /72.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1066 & 10(j7 of; 1972.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21 /22nd Feb. 1972 o( the
Allahabad High Court in C.W., Nos. 5273/,71 and 1170/72.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1140-1142 of 1972.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 29-3-1972/14-2-1972 and
21-2-1972 ofl the A•llahabad High Court )Ii Civil Misc. Writ Nos. 5064/1
71, 1801/71 and 5018/;71. ·
Civil Appeal No. 1160 of 1972.
E From th!l Judgment and Order dated 18-4-1972 of the Allahabad
High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 4223/71.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1329-1330 of 1972-
From the Judgment and Order dated 18-4-1972 of the Allahabad
High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Nos. 4587/71 and 4605/71.
F Civil Appeal No. 1367 of 1972.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5-4-1972 of the Allahabad
Hii:h Court in C.M.W. No. 2278/70.

Civil Appeal No. 1409 of 1972.
G From the Judgment and Order dated 14-2-1972 of thci Allahabad
High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Nq. 1803/71.

Civil Appeal Nos. 1415 &; '. ~98 of 1972.
From the Jtidgment and Order dated 14-2-1972 of the Allahabad
R High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1802/71 & 3668/70.
Sf.JJilli Blmshan (in C.A. 712) P. R. Mridul (in C.A. 9"62)
P. N. Tiwari, K. J. fohn and J, S. Sinha for the Appellants in 'C:A'
GANGA SUGA!t CO· v. U.P. STATE (Krish11a Iyer, J.) 77:1

"112, 962-963, 1063-1069, 1140-1142, 1160, 1329; 1330 and 1598.' i\
·12.
Shanti Bhushan (in C.A. 409), 0. P. Malhotra (in C.A. 1415)
R. K. P. Shankar Das (1013 and 1409) H. K. Puri and V. K. Bahl
for the Appellants in CA 1013 and 1409 and 1415/72.
Yogeshwar Prasad, Mrs. Rani Chhabra and Mrs: S. Bagga for the B
Appellants in CA 1367/72.
O. P. Rana and R. Ramachalldran for the Resp<111dents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRiSHNA IYER, J.-This phalanx of appeals,. over 200 strong, bas C
stagnated for eight years and slowed down other disposals, which is
unfortunate.
We believe that the price 0£ healthy justice from the highest Bench
is eschewal of all but those cases which possess the twin attributes of
(i) substantial question of law of general importance (ii) which. needs D
to be decided by the Supreme Court jtself, whether the jurisdiction be
under Article 133, 134 or 136. Such being the jurisdictional dynamics
of the Supreme Cou.rt, save in exceptional cases of appalling injustice,
we hope tile Bar )Vill share this concern and avoid a breakdown for,
truly, the question today is : To be or not to be.
E
All these appeals spring from a common demand for tax by the
State of Uttar Pradesh from a number of sugar mills' on the purchase of
sugarcane at a rate regulated by weight, not value, a pragmatic novelty
in the sales tax pattern which has provoked an argument about its
validity. Legn! ingenuity, which rich mills, making common cause,
could summon, spun out several constitu~ional and other challenges F
to the levy in _the High Court, all of which became casualty when the
Division Bench delivered judgment. Even so, the memoranda of
appeals have set forth an imposing array of grounds of varying meri.t,
all save three of which, by the wise husbandry of counsel, have been
mercifully abandoned. The three survivors deserve no better fate but
it behoves the court to state the triple challenges presented from vari-
ous angles and ratiocinate at some length to reach the litigative ter-
minus. One or two mQ!fe minor matters, wl1ich figure in the debate
at the bar, may, however, be noticed in the course of the stride.
· Far more facts and a fulle.r projection of the law may be in plac~
here, We are concerned with a levy under the U.P. Sugarcane I Pur-
H
chase Tax) Act, 1961, (\or short, the Act), Sales tax, item 54 in
the State List, was once described in the thirties by a far-sighted Chief
13--625 SCI/79
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980]. l S.C.R ..

A Minister and nation-builder, Sri C. Rajagopalachariar, as a Kamadhenu.
True to his prescience, every State, today, relies heavily on this levy
for which the common man eventually pays heavily. U!tar Pradesh,
which grows sugarcane and runs ·sugar mills in the private sector. hit
upon a tax on the purchase of cane. by millers who manufactured sugar
and khandasari, at differential rates, but it is a heritage from the thir-
. B tics. A little legislative hiotory, mixed with tentative inferences, illu-
minates the, legal. controversy since appellants' counsel set much store
by this as an auxilliary circnmstance.
A broad brush projection of the fiscal story and background eco-
nomy may now be attempted, although we regret that no authoritative
c material, beyond what can be culled from the High Court judgment,
is forthcoming. We will make-do with it although litigants, e>pecially ·
in the battle-field of unconstitutionality, must produce the socio-econo-
mic bio-data of challenged legislation, explaining the 'how', the 'why'
and 'why not' of each clause lest lay minds, lost in legal tuning, should
miss meaningful sound and social sense which experts may explain.
D Law cannot go it alone-nor lawyers.
Ma;ty States in India grow sugarcane, all of which, save negligible
quantities, suffer crushing and its sucrose! content is recovered as sugar,
a:
khandasari and, on cottage industry basis, as gur. Andhra Pradesh, ·
Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Kenda, Kamataka, Maharashtra, Madhya
E Pradesh, Punjab, Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh not
only grow sugarcane but enjoy purchase tax, a majority' of which levy
by weight rather than on price. And we cannot Jose sight of the AU-
India impact when the law is laid down under Article 141. Judg- ·
ments of this Court are decisional between litigants but declaratory for
the nation.
F '
Sugar is an export item and, of course, is a daily necessary at home.
Uttar Pradesh, according to the Report of the Tariff Commission on
the cost Structure of the Sugar Industry a11d the Fair Price for Sugar
.C
( 1969) has the heaviest concentration of sugar mills in the country
but several of them are uneconomic and some sick. Modernisation is ·
G a message lost on U.P. sugar manufacture and the cane cultivator's
fortune hangs on the fluctuating prosperity of the marginal millers. The
sugar and sugarcane economy is the victim of a variety of forces which
add to the precariousness and poor efficiency of factories. The
area under cultivation recedes or expands with the decrease or increase
of crushing by the factories and the misery of losses and instability of
H acreage under cane cultivation have played havoc with agriculturists.
Pithering prices of sugar, export promotion as a policy, 'levy' of
sugar to feed, the poor and a number of other intricate economic facts
GANGA SUGAR co. v. U.P. STATE (Krishna Iyer, J.) 775

) have made the fiscal manoenvring a matter of expertise and social A
justice.
While, on a pan-Indian survey, wide variations in quality of cane
and efficiency of mills may be found, within Uttar Pradesh, broadly
speaking, the sucrose content differs but little and the percentage of
recovery also is more or less the same :llor factories in the State save B
where the machinery effects efficiency. So much so, the price of
@garcane, usually decided by the Central Government's notification
of minimum price, depends on its weight and sucrose recovery and,
in practice, within a region both gravitate towards a common point.
Moreover, the Uttar Pradesh sugar map reveals, as pointed ou! by the
High Court, that 'the more you crush, the more you produce; the more c
you produce, the more you earn. So the quantity of sugarcane crushed
by a factory is an ind~x of its earuings'. The relevance of this
;relationship between consumption of quantity by the mills, their sugar
production and quantnm of pr;s, to the question of tax incidence,
its equity' and equality will be ta en up by us later on. Prima facie,
there is a cane-sucrose correlation, for the State. Apart from it, the D
more the cane purchase\!, the more the profits spun; and the justice of
fixing the tax tag on thd weight of cane purchased argues itself. And
what makes for just impost of the tax burden is the antithesis of
arbitrariness. When the majority of the sugarcane States have
imposed purchase tax by weight, net value, a reinforcement of sorts is
added to this inference. The High Court observes, based on these E
-Oata :
"Prime facie, purchase tax by weight would ensure more
stable revenue over the years than the purchase tax by the
price of sugarcane" which rises and falls in a four years'
cycle". F
This statement has not been upset by any facts placed before the
court and ipse dixits of counsel, sans data, are airy economics.
Another market eccentricity musf be noticed. Busiuess cycles
... -0f boom and slump have been the bane of the sorry sngar and sugar-
cane story of that State, and fiscal policy to stabilise a wobbling market G
economy has been presumably evolved thoughtfully. The Report we
have referred to bears testimony to this cyclical factor and the High
Court has drawn inferences therefrom. Let us view the inequity of
' ,}'-
. the impost had it been related to the price of cane. The High Court
gives some facts :
H
"The price of sugarcane is, according to the Report of
the Tariff Commission, determined by the Jaw of supply and
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1'980] I s.c.It.

A deJlland in a particular year. Accordingly it may vary dis-
proportionately in various regions of thei State. On<i factory
may pay more for the same quantity of sugarcane than the
other. Indeed, the Basti Sugar Mi!Js Company Limited has
made that allegation. The Basti Sugar Mills Company
Limited paid Rs. 7,00,000/- less than the Seksaria Sugar
B Mills Private Limited for the same quantity of sugarcane.
If the quantity of sugar manufactured by them iu that year. is
more or less the same, thei.r earnings will be the. same. So
tax by price would be more oppressive on the Seksaria Sugar
lVlil!s Private Limited. On the other hand, as tax is by
weight, both of them would have paid the same amount of
·C tax in that year. Neither of them could 'complain of unfair
or inequitable incidence of taxation."

Of course, stabilisation or uniform fixation ·of: cane prices is the
annual endeavour· of Central and State Governments and this reduces·
disparity among millers, except the factoir of efficiency. Variations
D
in cane transport costs a.re minimized amt taken care of by zoning pur-
.chases statutorily, and then weight-price correlation becomes more
stable and sober in practice than abstract arguments based on printed
paper and flight of fancy may luridly suggest. The life of the law
is real life, not little-logic and the High Court's deductions, though a
E lay exercise, cannot be faulted as fallacious by lay advocacy.

Regretably. we have no contrary statistics and the Jearned judgesi
have stressed this weakness. We agree with those observations and
accept them since. nothing urged before us has furnished factual con-
.F tradiction of these premises· : ·
"The petitioners have not supplied for any period
figures of actual prices paid1 by them, actual quantity of cane
crushed by them, actual quantity <X juice derived, actual
quantity of sugar produced and their earnings. They have
not tried to prove that the standard of price would be more
G just and equitable than the standard of weight for levy of
purchase tax. Ftom the meagre data gleaned from the
Tariff Commission's Report, it is not possible to take the
view that tax by weight is unfair and inequitable. And
Article 14 ensures to the citizen the basic principle on
which rests justice under the law. It assure.s to the citizen
H the ideal of fairness (Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. XVI-A
p. 296). The petitioners have failed to dischargel the heavy
burden of proof".
: !·-"'>•

GANGA SUGAR: co. v. U.P. STATR (Krishna Iyer, l.) 777

) Abstract submissions· flung from imagination do not reach the A
IPOint of forensic take-off, if we· may add. Tentatively, subject to
further examination, the conclusion of the High Court commends it-
:self to us :
"The incidence of purchase tax by weight appears fo be
more related to the earning capacity of thel assessee. than the B
incidence of tax by price of sugarcane".
"To clinch the issue, as it were, the High Court winds up :
"The petitioners have not argued that the impugned pro-
vision is confiscatory in, nature. I have ~lreal(y shown) that
tax by weight has got fairer relation to the p~uction of
·sugar by an earning of a factory than tax by price. Conse- c
•quently, no one can fairly complain that .the impugned pro-
·vision treats unequals as equals. Equal crushing attracts
equal tax."
We may comment by way of supplement that equal crushing m2ans
-equal weight of cane. So cane quantity and tax liability roughly match D
:and remove tlm fear of ·uneven imposts.
Let us go back to pick up the threads, leaving this pertinent detour
for a while. Sugarcane agriculture and sugar industry 11ave been the
·cynosure of legislative attention at Central and State levels for long.
We may start a rapid survey from 1932 when the Sugar Industry Pro-
tection Act, 1932 was put on the statute book. E

Its object was to foster and develop the sugar industry by protec-
tive tariffs. Then came the Sugarcane Act 1934 which empowered
·the Provincial Government to fix a flow price for sugarcane sold
to sugar factories. This was followed by the U.P. Sugar Factories
Control Act 1938, which replaced the earlier 1934 Act. Thus came F
into existence a statutory Sugaa-cane Control Boatd~and a Cane Com-
m1ss10ner. Section 29(1} of this Act imposed a ..· ........ sales tax
·on the sale of sugarcane. Sub-section (3) provides for a cessl on the
·;:ntry of sugarcane into a local area. The necessity' for the fostering
legislative care of sugarcane cultivation and the imposition of a tax
in tfiis behalf is explained in the Statement of Objects and Rea.sons G
to the Bill of 1938 :
"The future of the sugm industry depends to a very
1arge extent on a big drive for the improvement of cane
cultivation and its planned productioµ on a rational basfs.
To enable Government to carry out th.e necessary measures H
in this connection, which 'will involve considerable expendi-
ture, and to take other steps conducive to the wcifare of
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 1 S.C.R.

A the industry, cane growers and agriculturists generally, it js
proposed to impose a tax upto a maximum limit of six
pies a maund of the sale of sugarcane to a factory or a; cess
at the same rate on the entry of cane into a local area noti-
fied in this behalf for consumption, use or sale therein." '

B It is significant that 40 years ago the tax for the benefit of cane
growers· wos linked up with weight. It is not as if a freak flash flit
post the legislative· mind of linking up purchase tax with weight of
cane in 1961 only. Apparently, measure of tax by weight of stuff in
the peculiar circumstances of· sugarcane economy has been tested by
time and metabolised into the consciousness of the affected Trade and
c the Administraih,h.
Be that as it may, the development of sugarcane cultivation was
taken up on a systematic b~sis as per the statutory mandate. · Both
the tax am! the cess contemplated by the 1938 Act went by the maund
and alth01;gh the cess wa~ to be levied from the seller he was allowed
D to recover it from the purchaser. The 1938 Act gave place to the
U.P. Sugarcane (Regulations of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953, which
created a scientific scheme, created a Fund, injected the concept of
cane growers' coop_eratives '!nd provided for levy of cess. The cess
part of the Act was replaced by the U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act 1956.
We must remember that by now the Government of India Act 1935
E had ceased to exist and the Constitution of India had come vibrantly
into being with the fur{damental rights of Part III. Th_e cess under
(he 1956 Act was attacked and fell victim to a constitutional challeng<:t
and this Court iri Diamond Sugar Mills' Case(') declared the Cess
Act ultra vires. The consequence of this mortality was the incarna-
tion of the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act 1961 which is being
F impeacl1'd as ultra vires iu these appeals. When cess failed, the
State would have been constrained to refund nearly half a hundred
' crores of rupees. Validation by parliamentary legislation in confor-
mity with the Constitution was, therefore, done. Eventually, the ·."-----
levy of a purchase tax was enacted into law by the U.P. Sugarcane
(Purchiise Tax) Aci 1961 (referred to as the Act). In a fiscal sense,
G
the Purchase Tax Act is a reincarnation of the Cess Act but, in a
•
legislative sense, it is an independent statute with a different source of
power, impact and structure. While the appellants have a case that
this fiscal history subStantiates their thesis that the present purchase ,
tax is a disingenuous di.guise, the State contends that its power to
JI impose a purchase tax is well within List II, Entry 54. An appeal to
history cannot impeach power. Plainly read, the Act, architectures
(I) (1961]3 S. C.R. 242.
GANGA SUGAR CO· v. U.I'; STATE (Krishna Iyer, J.) 779

a typical tax scheme, leviable at the purchase point with one difference, A
but we have been invited by Shri Shanti Bhushan, counsel for some
of the appellants, to lift th~ veil, look at the true: anatomy of the Act
and discover the unseemly unconstitutionality in its bosom.

Before we adventure into an assessment of the vulnerability ofj
the provisions to the appellants' artillery, we must project a picture of B
the impugned Act in its essenlials, sufficient to appreciate the grievanc~s .•
and their constitutional merit, remembering the judicial !imitation
that where economic diagnostics and administrative pragmatics blend
to produce a legislative outfit, restraint is prudence save where caprice
compels. The saga of the Act having been chronicled, wet may pro"
ceed to a d.issection. of the Act-from the Constitutional angle. C

It is worth mentioning tlmt Central and State Goverl1ments have
been deeply concerned with the economic. pros and cons of sugarcane
and sugar. The Tariff Commission in its report gives much of the
material relied on by the High Court. Indeed, when any legislation
is assailed as arbitrary, unreasonable or otherwise unconstitutional one D
expects both sides not to assume the Court to be omniscient but tn
furnish the surrounding m;i.terials, statistical data and the compulsive
factors which o~rated to provide the prescriptions in the legislation
consistently with the imperatives of Part III. This statutory "intelli-
gence" should he a necessary accompaniment to any litigative exercise
E
where constitutionality depends on social facts. Orality unlimited
and invitation into abstnictions can hardly do duty for a methodical
marshalling of meaningful facts. Anyway, we will discuss the meril~
of the contentions on the available materials supplemented by warran-
table guesses, with a presumption in favour o[ constitutionality streng-
thened by the High Court's affirmance since the principal attack is F
based on Article 14.

I Historically, the tax in question is a successor to the cess which
was struck down, but jurisprudentially, the levies ar~ different in ·
character and attributes and constitutionally, the imposts derive from
· different legislative entries and have to be tested by different standards. G
In short, the Purchase Tax Act has to be judged on its awn merits in
the light of submissions of counsel. The anatomy of the Act, to the
extent relevant, may now be envisaged. Section 3 is the charging
section and creates a liability on the purchase of sugar cane payable
by. a factor~ owner or a nnit owner. The rate is one rupee 25
Pa1se per ·qumtal and 50 Paise per quintal for factories and units res- ff
pectively. The taxing event is the purchase transaction by the owner
of a factory or a unit. An option is provided for in the case of owners
:, i

780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1Q80J 1 s.c.R.

of units to pay tax on an; assumed quantity prescribed by Government.
This is obviously to simplify and to benefit owners .of units who are
• presumably tiny producers of khandsari sugar. By definition, fac-
tories and units fall under .'(!ifferent categories, the former being geared
to manufacture of sugar by power, the latter being engaged in the
production of Gur, Rab or Khandsari suga< in crushers driven by
mechanical power. A classification based on scale of operations,
J
product manufactured and other substantial differences bearing on •
production capacity, profits of business and ability to pay tax, is
constitutionally valid and the ieeble contention counsel put forward
that there is discrimination between owners of factories and units .must
fail witho.ut much argument.
c
Section 3A, intended to guard against escape of tax, ensures· that
the sugar produced out of the sugarcane transaction exigible to 1'IJ<
shall virtually stand security, if we may crudely express ourselves that
way. The sugar produced in the factory shall not be re1)1oved until
the tax levied under Section 3 is paid. Other detailed provi;ions
calculated to safeguard the tax are also contained in Section 3A.
Provision for revision of assessment is contained in Section 3B.
While fines and punishments for contraventions find a place 'in
Section 8, remission of taxes is alsq provided for in Section 14 and
comprehensive rule-making power is vested in government under Sec-
tion 15. Section 15(2). (F). (G) and (H), in particular, chase the
sugar manufactured from the taxable sugarcane and empower govern-
ment to ma!.:o .rules to secura the sugar bags from leaving the factory
premises uutil the liabilit¥ of the State is discharged. '
To sum up, the scheme is simple and workable. Uttar Pradesh
has a number of factories which- manufacture sugar. There are
quite a few units which, with less mechanisation, produce, out of
raw sugarcane, less refined, perhaps more nutritious, end-products like
khandsari sugar, gur or rah. These two classes are well-established,
their operations, economics and manufactures are different and the
fiscal legislation in question classifies them as factories and units and
·G imposes differential levies. 'The Act, by Sec. 3, imposes a rate of tax
of 1 rupee 25 Paise per quintal of sugarcane purchased by a factOry
owner, the corresponding rate for a 'unit' being but 50 Paise .•. The
charge is on the purchase transaction payable by the owner of the
factory or ·~nit 'on such date, at such place and iu such instalments
as may be presc.ribed' (Sec. 3 (2) .) Jntere&t and penalty, appeal,
H prosecution and other cQnsequential provisions find a place as usual
but the basic challenge is to the charge of tax on three grounds. The
cha~ge is bad, firstly, because, argues counsel, it is, in its true charru;ter,
GANGA SUGAR CO· v. U.P. STATE (Krishna Iyer, J.) 781

:a l~gislation in respcet of a 'controlled industry' and this power belongs A
· exclusively to Parliament under Entry 53 of List I (VII Schedule).
The next submission to shoot down the measure is that the Act,
masked as purchase tax, in essence asks for an excise duty on sugar
manufacture and is, therefore, invalid as. colourable legislation, seeking
:to ac11ieve, on the sly, what it dare not do straight. Surely, excise B.
· duty falls under Entry 84 of List I and the State Legislature cannot
.usurp that power. Even if the levy be a hybrid one, as Sri Malhotra
made it out to be, it falls under Entry 97 of List I, out of bounds for
:the State Legislature.
The final shot fired to bring down the fiscal levy on the score of
:uiiia vires is from the customary barrel. of Article 14. A multi-
c
prolo1)ged attack, based on Article 14, was .Jaunched. The levy cast
equal burdens on unequals and so was invalid on the ground of dis-
-crimination. A tax, by this canon, must be linked to price of canon,
.not its quantity, Jest the millers be made. to pay unevenly for two con-
signments of equal weight but unequal price. A refinement of the D
same argument was developed on the basis of the sugar output from
:the cane crushed.· The sucrose content of sugarcane varid from
·cane tOI cane and, perhaps, from mill to mill and to lump theni to•
:gethcr quantitatively for a uniform impost is to turn the Nelson's eye
'(}n the inter se inequality. Procrustean cruelty is anathema for the
Jaw whern U!1equals ar.e equalised into arbitrary conformity. Counsel E
submit that sucrose is the touchstone and where that content varies
. but the levy is standardised on the weight of cane the exaction must
1
.be outlawed under Articles 14 und 13 and even 19 (unreasonable).

We reject all the three contentions and hold that the Act can pam-
·,Q]rnfe to snfety despite the ineffectual artillery. For, as on Bubaivat, F
-we 'heard great. argument about it and about but evermore came out
by the same door as illjwe 'went'. Let us anyway scan, the 'substantial
iJJOints' which have sojourned in this Court all these years awaiting; a.
constitutional pronouncement. Incidentally, most of these picas have
been negatived by this Court on earlier occasions but phantom argu-
:ments often survive afte.r death. \ G
I
Is the legislation ultra vircs because the State enters the forbida'en:
·ground by enacting on ,controlled industry ? It is undisputed that
sugar fodm.try is a controlled industry, within the meaning of Entry 52,
1-ist I of Schedule and, ·therefore, the legislative power of Parliament
covers enactments with respect to industries having regard to Article B
246(1) of the Constitution. If the impugned legislation invades
:Entry 52 it must be repulsed by this Court. But entry 54 in List II
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.lt.

A· of the Seventh Schedule empowers the State to legislate for taxes 011
purchase of goods an.d so if the Act under consideration is attracted, ill .,(_
pith · and substance, by this Entry legislative incompetence cannot
void the Act. The primary question, which we have to pose to our-

J
selves, is as to whether this State Purchase Tax Act is bad because it
is a legislation with respect to a controlled industry, to wit, the sugar
B industry. What matters is not the name of the Act but its rear
nature, its pith and substance. The same problem demands our
attention at a later stage in cqnsidering the contention that the levy
under examination is, in a sense, an excise duty and not a purchasC'
i
tax.

c We are somewhat surprised that the argument about the invalidity
of the Act on the score that it is with respect to ai 'controlled industry"
dies hard, despite the Ie:thal decisio~ of this Conrt iri Ch. Tika Ramjl':r
case,(!). Enlightened litigative policy in the country must accept
)
as final the pronouncements of this Court by a Constitution Bench; un-
less the subject be of such fundamental importance to national life
D or the reasoning is so plainly erroneous in the light of later thought '
that it is wiser to . be ultimately right rathe.r than to be consistently
wrong. Stare decisis is not a ritual al. convenience but a rule with
limited exceptions. Pronouncements by Constitution Benches should
not be treated so cavalierly as to be revised frequently. We cannot
devalue the decfaions of this Court to brief ephemerality which recalls
E tl1e opinion expressed by Justice Roberts of tl1e U.S. Supreme Court
in Smith v. Allwri~ht(') "that adjudications of the Court were rapidly
gravitating 'into the same class as a restricted railroad ticket, gooil for
this day and train only' ".
Let us examine the worth/ of the contention that the impugned legis-
F lation is one on a 'controlled industry' and therefore out of bounds for
the State Legislature.
Tika Ramji's case (supra) deals with the identical question of .1
'controlled industry' vis-a-vis a U.P. Legislation regulating sugarcane t
supply and purchase. Certain sugarcane growers of Uttar Pradesh
G a!j&ailed the vires of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulatio?s of Supply and
PVrchase) Act 1953. That statute reserved or assigned to sugar fac-
tories specified cane purchasing centres for the purpose. This regi-
mentation of sugarcane growers and regulation of cane supplies lo'
specified millers by a State enactment was attacked on the precise
ground that sugar being a 'controlled industry' any enactment affecting J..
R such industry including the regulation of. supplies of .raw material!!'
(I) [1956] S. C. R. 323.
(2) 321 U. S. 649 at 669 (1944).
GANGA SUGAR co. v. U.P. STATE (Krishna Iyer, J.) 783

thereto was taboo. The plea was dismissed as specious, and the ~
appeals under our consideration are a fortiori case where the rejection
of the contention can be more confidently made.
N. H. Bhagwati, J., speaking for the Court traced the legislative
history bearing on sugar and sugarcane. Reference was made to the
Industries (Development and Regulation) Act 1951 which brought i1\
as Item 8 of the First Schedule to the Act the industry engaged in the
manufacture or production of sugnr. The impugnetl legislative mea-
sure was occasioned by the need to streamline the supplies of cane to
factories. The Jaw was designed to provide for a rational distribu-
tion of sugo.rcnne to factories, for its development on organised scientific
lines, to protect the interests of the cane growers and of the industry.
The submission made there was that even though the impugned Act
purported to legislate in regard to sugarcane required for use in sugar
{ factories, it was, in pith and substance and in its. true nature and effect,
' legislation in regard to sugar industry which had been declared by Act
LXV of 19 51 to be an industry under Entry 52 of List I. It was
urged that the word 'industry' was of wide import and inc]uded not,
merely manufacture but also the raw materials for the industry. The
supply and distribution of raw materials for the sugar industry were,
therefore, matters having a clear impact on the production of sugar.
Jn this view, it was pleaded that sugarcane coµtrol vis-a-vis' sugar
factories was a colourable exercise of legislative power by the State
trespassing upot~ the field of Entry 52 in List I.
Tikka Ramji's case (supra) •gave short shrift to: thc'.submission that
all sugarcane legislation link~d to sugar factories was sugar legislation.
Bhagwati, J. observed :
"What we am concerned with here is not the wise cons-
truction to be' put on the term 'industry' as such but whether F
the raw materials of an industry which form an intc1Jral part
of the process are within the topic of 'industry' for which
forms the subject-matter of Item 5~ of List I as ancillary or
subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be said
to be con.iprehended in that topic and whether the Central
Legislature while legislating upon sugar industry could, act-
ing within the sphere of Entry 52 of List I, as well legislate
'Open sugarcane."(') ·
The learned Judge stripped the argument naked and presented it
for examination :
"It was suggested that Item 52 of List I comprised not
only legislation in regard. to sugar industry but also in regard
(I) lbidp.414.
7$4 I SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 1 S.C.ll.

to sugarcane which was an essential ingredient of t11e1 indust-
rial process of the manufacture or p.roduction of sugar and
was, therefore; ancillary to it and was covered within the
topic. If legislation with ;regard to sugurcane thusi came
within the exclusive province of the Central Legislature, the

• Provincial Legislature was not entitled to legislate upon the
same ... "(')
1
. )
The court was pressed to impart the widest amplitude to ·the
topic 'industry' and take within its wings ancillary matters like r.aw
materials of the industry : · ·~
C "It was, therefore, contended tl1at the Legislation in re-
gard to sugarcane should be considered as ancillary to the
legislation in regard to sugar industry which is a controlled
industry and comprised within Entry 52 of List I. ... "(')

The edifice of exclusive Parliamentary jurisdiction so built stood
D on shifting sands. The semantic sweep of Entry 52 did not come in
the way of the State Legislature making laws on subjects within its
sphern and not directly going to the heart of the industry itself. The
key to the problem was furnished in Tikka Ramji's case (supr~).
After comparing the provisions of the U.P. Act there considered, which·
related to the regulation of sugarcane to factories and securing its
·E price. to the grower from the occupier of the factory even by checking
the accounts relating to the manufacture of Sligar, the Court clinched
the issue thus :

'This comparison goes to show that the impugned Act
merely confined itself to the regulation of the supply nnd
pu;rchase of sugarcane required for .use in sugar . factories
and did not concern itself at all with the control.ling or licens-
ing of the sngar factories, with the 'production or manufacture
of sugar or with the trade and commerce in, and. the produc-
tion, supply and distribution of sugar. If that was so, there
was no .question whatever of ifs trenching upon the jurisdic-
:G tion of the Centre in regard to sugar industry which was a.
controlled industry within_ Entry 52 of List I and the U.P.
Legislature had jurisdiction to enact the law with regard t<>
sugarcane and had legislative competence t() enact the impug-
ned Act."(')

II (1) Ibid. p. 414.
(2) ·Ibid pp. 416·417.
(3) Ibid pp. 422·423.
GANGA SUCiAR CO· v. U.P. STATE (Kris/ma Iyer. J.) 785

Even the argument of repugnancy was repelled :
"The pith and substance argument also cannnt be import-
ed here for the simple reason that; when both the Centre as
well as the State Legislatures were operating in the concur-
rent field, there was no question of any trespass up01i the
exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Centre under Entry 52
of List I, the only question which survived being whether,
putting both the pieces of legislation enacted by the Centre
and the State Legislature together, theJe was any repug-
nancy ............ "(1)

,.. This Court further quoted Sulaiman, J. In Shyamakant Lal(2)
c
to Je11d strength to this latter limb of reasoning, where the learned
Judge had laid down the1 principle of construction in, situations of appa-
rent conflict :
"When the questi<lll is whether a Provincial legislation
is repugnant to' an existing Indian Law, the. onus of showing
its repugnancy and the extent to. which it is repugnan~ shquld
be on the party attacking its validity. There ought to be a
presumption in favour of its validity, and every effort should
be made to reconcile them and construe both so as to avoid
their being repugnant to each other; and care should be
taken to see whether the two do not really. operate in diffe-
rent fields without encroachment. Further, repugnancy
must exist in fact, and not depend merely on a possibility."

Tika Ramji notwithstanding, the contention was advanced by Sri
, Shanti Bhushan that industry was a pervasive expression, ambient F
enough to embrace raw materials used for the industry and so, sugar
industry, as a topic of legislation, vested in Parliament exclusive power
to legislate on sugarcane supplies to sugar factories, and, pursuing this
expansionist logic, any taxation on supplies of cane to mills would be
legislation on sugar industry. Ergo the Purchase! Tax Act was: a usur-
pation by the U.P. Legislature breaching the dykes ofl Art. 246(1) read G
with entry 52 of List I. He expanded on the theme by urging that
any legislation which affecte<l the sugar industry by taxing its raw
materials was one with respect to that industry. The Tikka Ramji
ratio , is diametrically opposed to this reasoning and a ruling which
has· stood the field so Jong, has been followed by another Constitution
II
(I) Ibid pp. 420421.
~) lb id p. 427.
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

-A Bench as late as 1973 in the Kannan Devan case('), and its force
of logic has our deferential assent and cannot be brushed aside by a
mere appeal for reconsideration. Shri Shanti Bhushan candidly con-
ceded that if Tikka Ramji were good law his submission was still-born.
We agree
IB 'Industry as a legislative topic is of large and liberal import; true.
But what peripherally affects cannot be confused with what goes to l
the heart; An acquisition of land for sugar mills or of sugar mills ·
may affect the industry but is not an action in the legislative field for-
bidden for the States. [See the Kannan Devan Hills Produce Com-
pany Ltd. case (supra)]. Sales tax on raw materials going to a factory
,
/,
,,
-<: may affect the costing process ol the manufacture\ but is not legislation
on industrial process or allied matters. Indeed, ii the State Legislature
cannot go anywhere m;ar meaSill"es which may affect topics reserved
for Parliament a situation of reduction ad absurdum may be reached.
The further refinement made by counsel that here was legislation
.{) confined to factories and units only, the other buyers of sugarcane being
left out, and that therefore the Act was in intent and effect one with
respect to the sugar industry has no substance either .
. .For one thing, the bulk of the consumption of sugarcane was by
factories and khandsari units only and the omission of trivial consu- ·
mers did not mean that the legislation was not on sugarcane purchases
generally. Secondly, it was open to the legislature to make an intelli-
gent choice of the persons on whom the tax should be imposed. Here,
the bulk consumers Were selected and the marginal buyers omitted. We
discern nothing in this policy which legislates upon the sugar industry.
Before we move on to the submission as to the nature of the levy
being an excise duty, we may dispose of the little contention on alleged
discrimination between sugar factories and khandsari units by the imp~
post of differential rates of tax and more serious contention founded
on the breach of Article 14 to the effect that when a purchase tax
liability is computed by the weight of the case, as distinguished from
its monetary value, there is an inevitable arbitrariness built into the
texture of the Scheme. If either of these submissions has substance, the
tax in question must fall to the forces of Articles 14, 19 and 13, espe-
cially Art. 14, Art. 19 coming in only consequentially or where expro-
priation ensues.
Article 14, a great right by any canon, by its promiscuous forensic j

misuse, despite the Dalmia decision has given the impression of being
'
(!) [1973] I s. c. R. 3S6. '\
GANGA SUGAR co. v. u.P. STATE (Krishna !ya, J.) 787

, )~ l!he last sanctuary of losing litigants. In' present case, the levy which is A
. unifonn on all sugarcane purchases, is attacked as ultra vires, on the
~core that the sucrose content of various consignments may vary from
place to place, the range of variation being of the order of 8 to 10 per
cent and yet a uniform levy by weight on these unequals is sanctioned
by the Act. Price of cane is commended as the only permissible cri-
terion for purchase tax. The whole case is given away by the very cir- B
cumstance that, substantially, the sucrose content is the same for su-
garcane in the State, the marginal diffcnence being too inconsequential
!o .build a case of discrimination or is blamable on the old machi-
nery. Neither in intent no.r in effect is there any discriminatory treat-
ment discernible to. the constitutional eye. Price is surely a safe. guide
.but other methods are not necessarily vocational. It depends, practical
c
considerations of the. Adrninisration, traditional practkes in the Trade,
-0ther economic pros and cons enter the verdict but, after a judicial
generosity is extended to the legislative wisdom, if there is writ on the
status perversity, 'madness_' in the method or gross disparity, judicial
.credulity may snap and the measure may meet w1th its funeral. D
Eyen so, taxing statutes have enjoyed more judicial indulgence.
This Court has uniformly held that classification for taxation and the
.application of Article 14, in that context, must be viewed liberally, not
meticulously. We must always remember that while the executive and
legislative branches are subject to judicial restraint,
"the only check upon our exercise of power is our own E
sense of self-restraint."(')
In the Murthy Match Works(2) case, this Court observed:
"Certain principles which bear upon classification may
be mentioned here: It is true that a State may classify persons
and objects for the purpose of legislation and pass laws for F
the purpose of obtaining revenue or other objects. Every
differentiation is not a discrimination. But classification can
be sustained only if it is founded on pertinent and real
differences .as distinguished from irrelevant and artificial ones.
The constitutional standard by which the sufficiency of the
differenbia which form a valid basis for classification may G
be measured, has been repeatedly stated by the courts. If it
rests on a difference which bears a fair and just relation to
the object for which it is proposed it is constitutional. To put
it different1y, the means must have nexus with the ends.
Even so, a large latitude is .allowed to the State for
classification upon a reasonable basis and what is reasonable H
'(I) [1974] 3 S. C. R. 121.
'(2) Ibid. p. 130.
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A is a question of practical details and a variety of factors
which the court will be relucant and perhaps ill-equipped io
investigate. In this imperfect world perfection even in
grouping is an ambition hardly even accomplished. In this
context, we have to remember the relationship between the
legislativte and judicial departments of government in the
B determination of the validity of classification. Of course,
in the last analysis courts possess the power to pronounce on
the constitutionality of the acts of the other branches whether
a classification is based upon substantial differences or is
)
arbitrary, fanciful and consequently illegal. At the same
time, the question of classification is ·primarily for legis-
c lative judgment and ordinarily does not become a judicial
question. A power to classify being extremely broad and
based on diverse considerations of executive pragmatism, the
judicature cannot rush in where even the legislature varily
treads."
D The further challenge must be clarified here. Counsel submitted,
that unequals were being Itreated
.
equally by a uniform purchase tax
where equality would have dictated classification and taxation base(t
on sucrose recovery from the cane or its market price. Even here, we-
may notice the observations in Murthy. Match Works (supra).
Another proposition which is equally settled is that
E
merely because there is room for· classification it does n-0t
follow that legisiation without classification is always
unconstitutional. The court cannot strike down a law because
it has not made the classification which commends to the
court as proper. How can the legislative power be said to
F have . been unconstitutionally exercised because within the
class a sub-classification was reasonable but has not been
made.
· It is well established that the modern State, in exercising
its sovereign powers of taxation, has to deal with complex
factors relating to the objects to be taxed, the quantum to
G be levied, the conditions subject to which the levy has to be
made, . the social and economic policies which the tax is ·
designed to subserve, and what not. In the famous words of
Holmes, J. ip. Bain Peanut Co. v. Finson:
'We must remember that the machinery of Government .J..
I
would not work if it were not allowed a little play in. -its
B
joints."(1)
(I) Ibid. 130/131.
GANGA SUGAR co. v. U.P. STATE (Krishna lyer,.J.) 789

,_
It is well established that classification is primarily for the legis~ A
lature and becomes a judicial issue only when the legislation bears on
its bosom obvious condemnation by way of caprice or irrationality.
'
We have discussed earlier the history of legislative control, the im-
position of tax or cess by weight of cane and the acceptance of that
methodology all through the decades without demur by the Trade. B
Moreover, this Court has negatived an identical argument in a· case
from Andhra Pradesh (where also a similar leyy based on weight of
sugarcane is extent) in Andhra Sugar Ltd. & Anr. etc. v. State of
Andhra Pradesh & Ors.(1) The Court there observed :
"Mr. Setalvad submitted that there can be no levy of a c
purchase tax with reference to the tonnage of the cane.
We cannot accept this contention. Usually the purchase tax
is levied with reference to the price of the goods. But the
legislature is competent to levy the tax with reference to the
weight of the goods purchased.
D
The contention of Mr. Chatterjee that a purchase tax
must be levied \'iith reference. to the turnover only is equally
devoid of merit. Where the purchase tax is .levied on a
dealer, the levy is usually with reference to his turnover,
which normally means the aggregate of the amounts of
purchase prices. But the! tax need not necessarily be levied E
on a dealer or by reference to his turnover. It may be levied
on the occupier of a factory by reference to the weight of
the goods purchased by him."
Maybe, the discussion is brief but the conclusion is sound, and
we concur. Tax on sale or purchase must be on the occurrence of F
a taxing event of sale transaction. Beyond that is left to the free
play of the legislature, subject, of course, to the contra-indications
about capricious, arbitrary or irrational features. It is a superstition,
cultivated by familiarity, to consider that all sales-tax must necessarily
have nexus with the price of the commodity. Of course, price as
basis is not only usual but also safe to avoid uneven, unequal burdens, G
although it is conceivable that a legislature can regard prices which
fluctuate frequently, as too impractical to tailor the purchase tax. It
may even be, in rare cases, iniquitous to link pur~hase tax with price,
if more sensible bases can be found. Supposing a legislature classi-
fies sales-tax on the basis of human categories and reduces the rate
or exempts the tax in respect of abject destitutcs, or starving flood
H

(I) [1968] I S. C. R. 705.
14-625 SCl/79
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 s.c.R.

victims or notoriously hazardous habitations, with respect 'to necessity
of life. Such differentiation cannot be castigated as discrimina-
tion out of hand. Of course, it is common and commonsense that
reliable standard is the price, although in regard to customs duties there
arc still items levied on the nature of the goods rather than its value
in money. For the present, it is sufficient to state that the practice
• has been to impose purchase tax by weight of cane. Also, in w<'ight
of cane its sucrose content and its price have a close nexus, although,
thwretically, they may appear unconnected. The High Court has I
stated that the quantity crushed, the sugar produced and the profits ·
earned, have a substantial linkage. The quality of eane over tlfe
whole OL Uttar Pradesbi varies over a range of 8 to 10 per cent which,
c if conv&ted to purchase tax, may inflict a trivial difference per quintal.
Moreover, for many years past the bull:: Qf the sugar has been absorbed'
by 'levy' by the State and in the costing components the State, as
buyer of sugar, has borne the burnt. We have no facts .to hold that
arbiltary or vagariO'us burdens are cast because weight, not price., has
D been the yardstick for tax.

Fine-tuning to attain perfect equality may be a fiscal ideal but, in
the rough and tumble of work-a-day econqmics, the practical is pre-
ferred to the ideal, provided glaring caprice or gross disparity does
not make the levy arbitrary or frolicsome. Article 14 is not intel!ec-
E tual chess unrelated to actual impact or the wear and tear of life but
·even-handed justice with some play in the joints.

Sri Mridul, one of the advocates appearing for the appellants, made
a naive presentation that equality is inflexible as enshrined in Article
14 and so the differential in rate of tax as between sugar mills arid
F khandsari units is bad. The plea that infants and adults, weeklings
and strongmen, paupers and princes should be put on a. par lest legis-
lative validity be imperilled has an elitist merit but sounds like an
argumentum ad absurdum in the context of social justice. Unequals
cannot be treated equally since mechanical uniformity may become un-
G mitigated injustice. Khandsari units are cottage industries unlike
sugar factories and need legislative succour for survival. Their eco-
-1 nomy justifies State actiO!Il, classifying them as. apart from factories
and we. fail to appreciate the flaw in the scheme on this score.

Reference to K. T. Moopil Nair's cas~ was made at the bar to per-
H suade us that unequals cannot be tortured into equality..:.-a: vice which
stultifies the soul of Article 14 as Anatole France exposed in his
sardom epigram that 'the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the
GANGA SUGAR CO· v, U.P. STATE (Krishna Iyer,].) 791

~
h. as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to b~g in the streets, A
nd to steal bread'. We are sure that equality has two sides, both
portant, and Moopil Nair adverted to one of the facets. Nothing
more cart be squeezed out of that case. The inequality of situation,
in the total conspectus of socio-eConomic facts and human condition,
must be striking and the unjust equality the rule forces down on un-
equals must be glaring. In taxation, the many criteria of intrinsic B
intricacy and pragmatic plurality persuade th~ Court, as a\ realist instru-
ment and respecter of the. other two branches, to allow considerable
free play although never any play for caprice, mala {ides.., or cruel reck-
lessness in intent and effect.
Sri Malhotra, counsel for some appellants, explored beyond Sri c
Sl1anti Bhushan, the 'excise' argument in detail, read to us several sec-
tio1\s and rules which enables the tax authorities to keep effective track
of and control over the sugar in the factories to the extent needed f9r
recovery of the tax. Nothing in these provisions regulates or controls
the industry itself nor exacts any levy on the manufacture of sugar or
its wide.r ramifications. Nothing more than prevention of esc.ape- D
(
ment of purchase tax on cane is done and what is done is legitimately
incidental to the taxing power. Peripheral similarity between purchase
tax and excise levy does not spell essential sameness. Sugarcane
tax operates in the neighbourhood. of sugar excise but proximity is not
identity. The tax is only on purchase of cane, not its conversion jnto E
sugar. If the miller has his own cane farm and crushes it, he ha.-s
no purchase tax to pay but cannot escape excise duty, if any. Again,
if cane is purchased by a miller and it is later robbed or destroyed
before sugar is manufactured, the State ta..x: is exigible although excise
on production is not. A perspicaciou,s appreciation of the implica-
tions of purchase and production dispels confusion on this issue. To
) buy raw produce is a step preliminary to manufacture but is not part
• of manufacture. Maybe, in some cases tax on such purchase and
duty on manufacture therewith are so close that thin 'partition do
their bounds divide' but how cab we obliterate those bounds and tele-
scope the two ?
G
All the appeals deserve to be and are! dismissed with costs one
set. '

·N. K. A. Appeals dismissed..