DRAFT CONSTITUTION 1115
raising revenue for the simple reason that a taxation system can be altered on the basis, so far as I know, of two principles. One is the largest equity between the different classes. If one class is taxed more than another class it is justifiable to employ the taxation system to equalise the burden.
The second important principle which, I think, is accepted all over the world is that no taxation system should be so manipulated as to lower the standard of living of the people, and I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that the sales tax has a very intimate connection with the standard of living of the people of the province. But, with all the sympathy that I have with my friend, I again find that if his amendment was accepted it would mean that the power of the provinces to levy the sales tax would not be free and unfettered. It would be subject to a ceiling fixed by Parliament. It seems to me that if we permit the sales tax to be levied by the provinces, then the provinces must be free to adjust the rate of the sales tax to the changing situation of the province, and, therefore, a ceiling from the Centre would be a great handicap in the working of the sales tax. I have, no doubt that my Friend Mr. Tyagi, if he goes into the Provincial legislature, will carry his ideas through by telling the Provincial Governments that the sales tax has an important effect on the standard of living of the people, and therefore, they ought to be very careful as to where they fix the pitch.
Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Have I become so inconvenient to you ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Not at all. If I were a Premier, I would have taken the same attitude as you have taken.
Now, coming to the amendment of my honourable Friend Pandit Kunzru, I am inclined to think that the purpose of his amendment is practically carried out in the explanation to sub-clause (1) where also we have emphasised the fact that the sales tax in its fundamental character must be a tax on consumption and I do not think that his amendment is going to improve matters very much.
There is only one point, I think, about which I should like to say a word. There are, I know, some friends who do not like the phraseology in sub-clause (1), in so far as it applies, “in the course of export and in the course of import.” Now, the Drafting Committee has spent a great deal of time in order to choose the exact phraseology. So far as they are concerned, they are satisfied that the phraseology is as good as could be invented. But I am prepared to say that the Drafting Committee will further examine this particular phraseology in order to see whether some other phraseology could not be substituted, so as to remove the point of