1998 (12) TMI 500 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Requirement of section 38B for a transporter operating its transport business relating to taxable goods in Tripura to obtain certificate of registration from the Commissioner of Taxes, is not violative of article 301 of the Constitution. In view of the aforesaid findings the impugned provisions of the Tripura Sales Tax Act and the Rules of 1976 are valid pieces of legislation

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Tripura Sales Tax (11th Amendment) Rules, 1994.
2. Legislative competence of the State Legislature to impose obligations on transporters under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976.
3. Whether the obligations imposed on transporters impede the free-flow of trade and are violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Tripura Sales Tax (11th Amendment) Rules, 1994:
The appellant-association challenged the constitutional validity of the Tripura Sales Tax (11th Amendment) Rules, 1994, and sections 29, 32, and 36A of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976. The amendments required transporters to obtain a certificate of registration and comply with various formalities, including maintaining accounts and making declarations in form XXIV. The appellants argued that these requirements were beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and violated several constitutional provisions, including Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 246, 265, 286, 300A, and 301.

2. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature:
The appellants contended that the obligations imposed on transporters could only be imposed on dealers and not on transporters who are not involved in the sale or purchase of goods. They argued that the provisions lacked legislative competence under List II of entry 54 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Court, however, held that the legislative entries should be given their fullest meaning and widest amplitude, extending to all ancillary and subsidiary matters. The Court cited several precedents, including Express Hotels Private Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd. v. Union of India, to support the view that ancillary provisions, even if they incidentally transgress jurisdiction, are valid if they achieve the legislation's objective.

3. Impediment to Free-Flow of Trade and Violation of Article 301:
The appellants argued that the requirement for transporters to obtain a certificate of registration and fill form XXIV impeded the free-flow of trade and was violative of Article 301 of the Constitution. The Court examined the purpose of the impugned provisions, which was to streamline assessment and check the evasion of sales tax. It held that these provisions were necessary to fix the dealer, taxable goods, place of sale or purchase, and the quantum of tax, thereby preventing tax evasion. The Court noted that the obligations imposed on transporters were in aid of the taxing authorities and did not place any tax liability on the transporters themselves.

The Court also referred to the case of Sodhi Transport Co. v. State of U.P., where a similar obligation on transporters was upheld. The Court found that the impugned provisions did not impede the free-flow of trade as they were reasonable restrictions under Article 304(b) of the Constitution, intended to check tax evasion.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the impugned provisions of the Tripura Sales Tax Act and the Rules of 1976 were valid pieces of legislation. The obligations imposed on transporters were ancillary measures to prevent tax evasion and did not impose any tax liability on the transporters. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court upheld the legislative competence of the State Legislature and the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions.

← Previous Next →