1982 (5) TMI 177 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Constitutional validity of section 28-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and rule 87 and form XXXIV of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of section 28-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, rule 87, and form XXXIV of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules. They argued that the requirement to obtain a transit pass when transporting goods through Uttar Pradesh imposed unreasonable restrictions on the movement of goods, violating articles 301 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioners contended that they should not be required to obtain transit passes as their vehicles were not bound for any place outside the state, but rather unloaded the goods within Uttar Pradesh. However, the court found the petitioners' argument untenable. The court clarified that section 28-B is only applicable when goods are bound for a place outside the state and pass through Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners' case fell under section 28-A of the Act, which deals with the import of taxable goods into the state. The court explained that the petitioners were not entitled to transit passes at the point of entry into the state since their vehicles terminated their journey within Uttar Pradesh and did not cross over to any other state.

The court highlighted that section 28-A of the Act provides for the import of taxable goods into the state and the necessary declarations or certificates to be obtained from the Sales Tax Officer. The court emphasized that section 28-B and rule 87 apply when goods destined for a place outside Uttar Pradesh pass through the state during their onward journey. The court also noted that the explanation appended to section 28-A presumes that goods were intended for business unless proven otherwise. The court clarified that if the petitioners subsequently dispatch the goods brought into Uttar Pradesh to other states, they can provide evidence to rebut the presumption that the goods were intended for business within the state. The court observed that the petitioners did not provide any instances where their vehicles were refused entry, goods seized, or demands made under the Act.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the petitioners were not concerned with section 28-B of the Act and, therefore, could not challenge its validity or that of rule 87. The court deemed the petitions misconceived and dismissed them with costs.