ANDHRA SUGARS LTD. & ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

ANDHRA SUGARS LTD. & ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Purchases of sugarcane by factories under compulsion of law pursuant to statutory agreements are valid and taxable under Entry 54, List II; Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane Act, 1961 is not ultra vires, does not violate Articles 14 or 301, and does not unreasonably discriminate between different classes of manufacturers.

Parties
Petitioner: Andhra Sugars Ltd. & Anr. Etc.; Respondent: State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; Intervener: Sachin Chaudhury, G. L. Sanghi, O. C. Mathur
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 September 1967
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Validity of Statute, Purchase Tax, Delegation of Legislative Powers, Equal Protection Under Article 14, Freedom of Trade Under Article 301

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andhra Sugars Ltd. & Anr. Etc.

Petitioner

State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Respondent

Sachin Chaudhury, G. L. Sanghi, O. C. Mathur

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 authorizes a valid purchase tax on sugarcane under Entry 54, List II, Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India
  2. 2 Whether Section 21 violates Article 14 by treating different classes of sugar manufacturers differently
  3. 3 Whether Section 21 impedes free trade, commerce and intercourse within the meaning of Article 301

Ratio Decidendi

Purchases of sugarcane by factories under compulsion of law pursuant to statutory agreements are valid and taxable under Entry 54, List II; Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane Act, 1961 is not ultra vires, does not violate Articles 14 or 301, and does not unreasonably discriminate between different classes of manufacturers.

Court Disposition

petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Petitions dismissed with costs, one hearing fee.