-
by Admin
05 December 2025 4:19 PM
"Taxation must not be used as a weapon to erect economic barriers within the Union." – Supreme Court rules that fiscal incentives cannot become protectionist tools. In a significant reaffirmation of India’s constitutional vision of economic unity, the Supreme Court of India, on September 24, 2025, delivered a path-breaking judgment declaring a Rajasthan Government tax exemption invalid for violating Article 304(a) of the Constitution. The Court held that the impugned VAT notification, which exempted locally manufactured fly ash-based products from tax while denying the same benefit to similar goods manufactured outside the State, was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Delivering the verdict, Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan ruled: “We have no hesitation in holding that the impugned notification violates Article 304(a) of the Constitution as it is discriminatory in nature.”
At the heart of the case lay a constitutional dilemma — Can a State, under the guise of promoting industrial policy, grant tax exemptions that discriminate against goods imported from other States?
The Court framed the issue precisely:
“Whether the impugned notification issued by the State of Rajasthan under Section 8(3) of the VAT Act violates Article 304(a) by granting tax exemption to local manufacturers and discriminating against similar goods manufactured outside the State?”
The Impugned Notification and Its Impact:
The challenged Notification dated 09.03.2007, issued under the Rajasthan VAT Act, granted tax exemptions on the sale of asbestos cement sheets and bricks having 25% or more fly ash content, but only if manufactured within Rajasthan and by dealers who commenced production before 31.12.2006.
The Court found this condition arbitrary and protectionist, stating:
“If the object of the exemption was to utilise the fly ash available in the State of Rajasthan itself, it should have been so spelt out in the impugned notification... Otherwise, we find a discrimination between asbestos products manufactured in the State of Rajasthan and manufactured outside.”
The State contended that the notification aimed to promote fly ash usage and encourage industrial development. However, the Court rejected this justification outright, holding:
“The impugned notification is bereft of any reason or justification.”
“Video Electronics Exception Cannot Be Stretched Into a Rule”
The Rajasthan High Court had upheld the notification, relying on the three-judge bench ruling in Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, where a limited and structured tax incentive to new industries was held constitutionally valid.
But the Supreme Court drew a clear constitutional line: “The limited exception carved out in Video Electronics cannot be enlarged, lest it would eat up the main provision.”
“The High Court... fell in error in holding that the present case also falls in the exceptional category covered by Video Electronics.”
What differentiated Video Electronics was the intent and structure behind the exemption: “There was a carefully crafted incentive scheme to attract investment in a disturbed State — that justification is conspicuously absent in the present case.”
On the Intent Behind the Notification: “Hostile in the Protectionist Sense”
The Court adopted a strict scrutiny standard, holding that Article 304(a) prohibits not mere differentiation, but “hostile discrimination in the protectionist sense.” It emphasized that the absence of policy rationale, both in the notification and in supporting documents, was constitutionally fatal.
Citing Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, the Court held: “Public orders made by public authorities... must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.”
And in emphatic terms: “The exemption was not backed by any declared industrial policy, nor was it geographically limited to backward areas... It was a blanket exemption to local manufacturers and a clear fiscal barrier.”
“Economic Nationalism Cannot Trump Constitutional Federalism”
The Court rejected the idea that States may build local economic empires at the cost of India’s internal market: “The weapon of taxation cannot be used to discriminate against imported goods vis-à-vis the locally manufactured goods.”
Quoting its earlier judgment in Jindal Stainless Ltd., the Court reaffirmed: “Article 304(a) frowns upon discrimination of a hostile nature in the protectionist sense and not on mere differentiation.”
Analysis of Precedents: Video Electronics, Shree Mahavir Oil Mills and Jaiprakash Associates
In dissecting the judicial precedent, the Court provided a constitutional roadmap for interpreting Article 304(a).
It explained that in Video Electronics, the exemption was limited to new industrial units, targeted specific goods (electronic items), and had a fixed duration.
“The substratum of the judgment in Video Electronics... is that Article 304(a) would not be breached by a carefully structured notification... for a stipulated period.”
In contrast, the decision in Shree Mahavir Oil Mills involved unconditional exemptions granted only to local manufacturers — a case directly analogous to the present one. The Court in Mahavir had warned:
“The limited exception carved out in Video Electronics should not be enlarged, lest it eat up the main provision.”
Most directly, the Court relied on Jaiprakash Associates, where a similar tax rebate limited to in-State cement manufacturers using fly ash was struck down.
“This judgment squarely applies to the present cases.”
"A Blanket Tax Exemption is a Constitutional Violation, Not a Fiscal Tool"
Justice Nagarathna and Justice Viswanathan emphatically concluded: “The impugned notification cannot be justified under the exception in Video Electronics... It discriminates against identical goods produced outside the State, thereby creating a fiscal barrier.”
The final holding was unambiguous: “The notification impugned in these cases dated 09.03.2007 is violative of Article 304(a) of the Constitution. Consequently, the impugned notification is quashed.”
Relief and Consequences: Refund, But Only If Not Collected from Consumers
Given the interim orders passed earlier in the case, the Court held: “If the appellants did not collect the tax differential from their customers, they would be entitled to refund of the amount deposited with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation.”
The case has now been posted for further directions to ascertain this.
A Strong Message Against Fiscal Protectionism
With this judgment, the Supreme Court has sent a strong constitutional signal: States may promote local industries, but they cannot create tariff walls that disrupt India’s economic federalism.
“Incentives may develop industries; they must not destroy constitutional unity.”
The decision reinforces that taxation cannot be used to protect local markets at the cost of free trade, and ensures that India remains a truly unified economic entity, as envisioned under Part XIII of the Constitution.
Date of decision: September 24, 2025
