Justices S Manikumar and V M Velumani said the petitioners could not equate themselves with TASMAC outlets and complain of being discriminated against as they purchase IMFL from THEM and sell it for much higher price. Hence, they are bound to pay the additional tax for selling it through their outlets.
The judges noted that the petitioners' customers and those
at TASMAC were two different categories. The petitioners were also not prevented from doing business. So there was no violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which conferred the right to carry on any business, the judges said.
The judges pointed out that profits of TASMAC went to the state's coffers and are spent on welfare measures. The higher tax on hotels and clubs was not violative of Article 14 (equality before law), since a mere classification per se could not be termed as arbitrary.
The judges agreed with the state government counsel that additional taxation was a policy decision taken by it to prevent revenue loss to the public exchequer.