# JAIPUR HOSIERY MILLS (P) LTD., JAIPUR' v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1971] 1 S.C.R. 396
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-04-27
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 77 to 84 of 1967
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jaipur-hosiery-mills-p-ltd-jaipur-v-the-state-of-rajasthan-others-5059
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14-R<tjasthan Sales Tax Act 1950
s. 4(2)-Exemption granted by notification to some garments-Not extended·- to hosiery articles-!/ violates Art. 14.
On January 31, 1958, a notification was issued by the State Government under s. 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1950 exempting from
tax the sale of any garment the value <if which did not exceed Rs. 4. In
a writ petition filed by a manufacturer of vests and underwears
(hosiery
articles) the High Court held that the notification covered hosiery articles
also.
On March 26, 1962, the State Government issued another notification under s. 4(2) of the Act exempting from tax the sale of any garment
the value of which did not exceed Rs. 4 but the exemption was not made
applicable to 'hosiery products and hats of all kinds'.
The appellants who
were doing business ill vests and underwears of knitted 'fabric challenged
in writ petitions the notifications on the ground that it violated Art. 14
.$L!!'t .92.!'i'itl!ti'?n.'. . The High C~urt. \l!smissed lb~ petiticms and held
vests and underwears came under hc~:~ry products'.
·
·
!n appeal to this Court,
.· . Hfiti'.l i i 1) A taxing status can be challenged on the gr6tirid 6f in•
ftingemerit of Art 14, but since the Legislature possesses a large freedom
Of classification in matters of taxation, it can exercise wide discretion in
selecting persons or objects which will be taxed, and, a statute is not open
to attack on the mere ground that it taxes some persons or objects and
not others. It must be shown that within the range of its selection the
law operates unequally,
Therefore, it is not for the
Court to decide
whether the policy of exempting articles made from woven
cloth was
justified or that hosiery articles should also be given the same exeonption.
.
[397 G-H; 398 Al
(2) The High Court ought not to have gone into the matter whether
vests and underwears are hosiery products as it
was for the
assessing
authorities to decide, in each case, whether the taxed goods were hosiery
products. f398 F-G]
C1v1L. APPELLATE JuRISDICTION :
Civil Appeals Nos. 77 to
84 of 1967.
Appeals from the judgment a_nd order dated November 22,
1966 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Writs Nos. 81 and
590 of 1965 and 9, 201, 217, 511, 512 and 513 of 1966.
H. R. Gokhale, Bishamber Lal and N. K. Puri, for the appellants.
A. K. Sen and K. B. Mehta, for the respondents.
c
D
F
G

## Text

396
JAIPUR HOSIERY MILLS (P) LTD., JAIPUR'
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS.
April 27, 1970
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14-R<tjasthan Sales Tax Act 1950
s. 4(2)-Exemption granted by notification to some garments-Not extended·- to hosiery articles-!/ violates Art. 14.
On January 31, 1958, a notification was issued by the State Government under s. 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1950 exempting from
tax the sale of any garment the value <if which did not exceed Rs. 4. In
a writ petition filed by a manufacturer of vests and underwears
(hosiery
articles) the High Court held that the notification covered hosiery articles
also.
On March 26, 1962, the State Government issued another notification under s. 4(2) of the Act exempting from tax the sale of any garment
the value of which did not exceed Rs. 4 but the exemption was not made
applicable to 'hosiery products and hats of all kinds'.
The appellants who
were doing business ill vests and underwears of knitted 'fabric challenged
in writ petitions the notifications on the ground that it violated Art. 14
.$L!!'t .92.!'i'itl!ti'?n.'. . The High C~urt. \l!smissed lb~ petiticms and held
vests and underwears came under hc~:~ry products'.
·
·
!n appeal to this Court,
.· . Hfiti'.l i i 1) A taxing status can be challenged on the gr6tirid 6f in•
ftingemerit of Art 14, but since the Legislature possesses a large freedom
Of classification in matters of taxation, it can exercise wide discretion in
selecting persons or objects which will be taxed, and, a statute is not open
to attack on the mere ground that it taxes some persons or objects and
not others. It must be shown that within the range of its selection the
law operates unequally,
Therefore, it is not for the
Court to decide
whether the policy of exempting articles made from woven
cloth was
justified or that hosiery articles should also be given the same exeonption.
.
[397 G-H; 398 Al
(2) The High Court ought not to have gone into the matter whether
vests and underwears are hosiery products as it
was for the
assessing
authorities to decide, in each case, whether the taxed goods were hosiery
products. f398 F-G]
C1v1L. APPELLATE JuRISDICTION :
Civil Appeals Nos. 77 to
84 of 1967.
Appeals from the judgment a_nd order dated November 22,
1966 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Writs Nos. 81 and
590 of 1965 and 9, 201, 217, 511, 512 and 513 of 1966.
H. R. Gokhale, Bishamber Lal and N. K. Puri, for the appellants.
A. K. Sen and K. B. Mehta, for the respondents.
c
D
F
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
Grover, J.
The3e eight appeals by certificate arise out of a
common judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dismising the
JAIPUR HOSIERY MILLS v. RAJASTHAN (Grover, /.)
397'
A
petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed- by the appellants.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
The appellants carry on the business, interalia, of manufacture and sale of vests and underwears
(Baniyans and
Chaddiesl out of knitted fabric. On January 31, 1958 a
notification was issued by the State
Government
under
s. 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1950, hereinafter called
the "Act", exempting from tax the sale of any. garment whether
prepared within or imported from outside Rajasthan the value
of which did not exceed Rs. 4/- in single piece. In spite of the
aforesaid notification the authorities did not exempt from payment of sales tax the sale of vests and underwears the value of
which did not exceed Rs. 4/- in single piece.
The notification
was interpreted to mean that the goods manufactured by
the
appellants w~re not garments within its meaning. Mis Pareek
·Hosiery Products, Jaipur, took the matter to the High Court by
way of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution which
was allowed and it was held ·that the vests and underwears were
covered by the said notification. On March 26, 1962 the State
of Rajasthan issued another notification
in
exercise of
the
powers under s. 4(2) of the Act by which the sale of garments
whether p·repared within or imported from outside
Rajasthan
the value of which did not exceed Rs. 4/- in a single piece were
exempted from payment .of sales tax .but this exemption exclud•
ed "hosiery products and hats of all kinds."
The
appellants
were subjected to sales tax in respect of sales of vests and underwears of knitted fabric for the periods of assessment ranging
between April l, 1961 .to October 31, 1965. Penalties were also
levied on them. It was in these circumstances that the appellants
filed writ petitions in the High Court. ·
The principal attack on the impugned notification was based
on Art. 14 of the Constitution. It was urged before the High
Court as it has been contended
before us
that there
was
no rational basis for classification between garments as such and
knitted garments like Baniyans and Chaddies. [n the affidavit
which was filed by the State no reason was giveu why particular
kind of garments were exempted whereas others of the same value
were not given the benefit of exemption. It is well settled that
although a taxing statute can be challenged op the grouqd1 of
infringement of Art. 14 but in deciding wh~th~(, the l~w cha!leng- .
ed its discriminatory it has to be borne in mind that m mat~rs of
taxation the legislature possesses the large freedom in the matter
o·f. classification. Thus wide discretion can be. ex~rc·
._. in ~elect'
ing persons or objects which will be taxed and the;
ute IS not
open to attack on the mere ground that it taxes
persons or
objects and not others.
It is only when within the range of its·
.398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 1 S.C.R.
:sdection: the Jaw operates unequally and cannot be justified on
A
.the basis of a valid clasification that there would be a violation
.of Art. 14.
/
Section 4 ( 2) of the Act provides that no tax shall be payable
.on the sale or purchase of any of the exempted goods if the
.conditions specified in column. 3 of the schedule are satisfied.
Where the State Government is of opinion that it is necessary or
,expedient in the public interest so to do, it may by notification
cexempt from tax the sale or purchase of any goods or class of
.. goods or any person or class of persons on such conditions as
.may be specified.
The impugned notification
was
issued in
accordance with this section. It is for the State to decide which
granting the exemption by means of a notification as to the class
of goods which should be exempted in public interest. As rightly
·pointed out by the High Court the notification makes a classification between garments in general the value of which does
not
·exceed Rs. 4/- in a single piece and hosiery products including
·hosiery garments. Hosiery products generally are knitted articles.
They are different from woven articles. It is not for the court to
decide whether the policy of exempting articles made from woven
doth was justified or that hosiery articles should have been given
·the exemption in the same way as other garments. It is entirely
·for the taxing authorities to take a decision as to the goods which
will be subjected to taxation and those which would be exempted
from it. As no other discriminatory treatment has been suggested
·on behalf of the appellants we must hold in concurrence with the
view of the High Court that the impugned noti.fication is not hit
·by Art. 14 of the Constitution.
It has been pointed out that the High Court proceeded to
-decide whether the Baniyans and Chaddies were included in the
term "hosiery products'. Such a decision should not have been
given by the High Court but should have been left to the assessing
authorities dealing with. each individual case.
In our judgment
the High Court ought not to have gone into that matter as it was
for the assessing authorites to decide in each case whether the
goods which had been subjected to tax were hosiery products.
With these observations the appeals are dismissed but in the
circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
V.P.S.
Appeals dismissed.
B
c
D
E
F
G