1988 (4) TMI 428 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of provisions in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and Rules.
2. Request to bring into force the provisions of section 22B of the Act.
3. Interpretation of section 22A in relation to goods in transit.
4. Comparison with previous Supreme Court decisions on similar provisions.
5. Consideration of mandamus for enforcing section 22B of the Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a transport corporation, challenged the validity of section 22A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and rules 61 to 63 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules. The petitioner also sought a writ to direct the State of Rajasthan to enforce section 22B of the Act. Previous judgments by the High Court and Supreme Court upheld the validity of the provisions in question. The Supreme Court rulings in Indian Roadways Corporation v. State of Rajasthan and Sanjay Transport Corporation v. State of Rajasthan supported the enforcement of section 22A and related rules, despite section 22B not being in force in Rajasthan. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that section 22B was essential for dealing with goods in transit, emphasizing that section 22A specifically pertains to the inspection of goods in transit.

Regarding the comparison with earlier Supreme Court decisions like Sodhi Transport Co. v. State of U.P., the Court found them irrelevant to the present case as they did not directly apply to the provisions of section 22A. The Court distinguished cases like Check Post Officer, Coimbatore v. K.P. Abdulla and Bros. and Hansraj Bagrecha v. State of Bihar, which dealt with different statutory provisions. The Court concluded that the previous decisions cited by the petitioner did not impact the validity of section 22A of the Act.

The Court addressed the petitioner's plea to mandate the enforcement of section 22B of the Act. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in A.K. Roy v. Union of India, the Court explained that a writ of mandamus cannot compel the State to implement a particular provision of an Act. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the validity of the provisions in question and declined to issue any costs. The judgment affirmed the legality of section 22A and related rules, emphasizing their applicability to goods in transit despite the non-enforcement of section 22B.