Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + SC VAT and Sales Tax - 2005 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (8) TMI 366 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the provisions of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 are similar to the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 or they are similar to the provisions of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976? Whether the provisions contained in section 42 requiring the transporters to furnish to the prescribed authority true and complete particulars and information and to maintain true and complete accounts, registers and documents in respect thereof and provisions contained in section 44 empowering the appointed authority to search any office, godown, etc., of transporters and seize any goods found therein can sustain in law? Whether the authority can direct a transporter to comply with the requirements of section 42 for period prior to the enactment coming into force? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Sections 42 and 44 of the Act do not impose any liability upon the transporter, carriers, etc., to pay any sales tax under the Act. The said sections are basically meant to check the tax evasion. Thus the requirement of maintenance of document and the certificate of registration by a transporter or any such agent is only for similar purpose as incorporated under sections 36A and 38B of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 which has been held to be a valid piece of legislation. The Assam Act is completely distinguishable from the Haryana Act. There is a marked difference between the provisions of Haryana and Tripura Laws inasmuch as section 38 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 does not clearly define the person dealing with "documents of title to goods". Further, this Court declared the provisions of section 38 of the Haryana General Sales Act to be ultra vires primarily on the ground that the transporters/carriers were specifically excluded from the definition of "person transporting goods" in the Explanation appended to section 38 of the Act. The insertion of section 46A and rule 21A has in no way infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioners as the inserted provisions are analogous to those of section 38B of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 which have since been upheld by this Court. The State Legislature has the jurisdiction and competence under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India to legislate such provisions as contained in section 46A of the Act, 1993.
|