1957 (3) TMI 46 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of section 28 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act regarding the power of the officer in charge of a check post to make an endorsement on receipts affecting the delivery of goods.
- Whether the endorsement made by the officer in charge of the check post was beyond the powers given under section 28.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution due to the impact of the endorsement on their business rights.
- Analysis of the power of interception and search granted to the officer in charge under section 28(3) and its relation to the endorsement affecting delivery.

The judgment of the High Court of Allahabad pertained to three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution raising a common question of law regarding the endorsement made by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer at a check post hindering the delivery of goods. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the officer from making such endorsements. The court examined the provisions of section 28 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, emphasizing that sub-section (3) does not empower the officer to impose restrictions on delivery through endorsements. The court concluded that the officer's endorsement was beyond the powers granted by section 28, as it caused delays and hardship to the petitioners, impacting their business operations. The Standing Counsel's argument that the power of interception under section 28(3) includes the authority to direct delivery in the presence of the Sales Tax Officer was dismissed by the court, stating that such endorsements causing delays were not within the scope of the officer's powers. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, directing the Assistant Sales Tax Officer not to make endorsements restricting the delivery of goods, thereby granting relief to the petitioners and emphasizing the importance of upholding their business rights.