1988 (3) TMI 438 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of section 28(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
2. Seizure and confiscation of goods under section 28(6).
3. Interpretation of judicial decisions regarding the validity of section 28(6).
4. Request for reference to a Full Bench.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the validity of section 28(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, which empowers officers to seize and confiscate goods not accounted for by the dealer. The petitioners argued that previous Division Bench judgments had declared this section ultra vires. However, the court clarified that such declarations do not erase statutes but only prevent their enforcement. A subsequent decision upheld the constitutionality of section 28(6, affirming its enforceability. The court held that the seizure of goods under this section was authorized by law, even though the goods had been released earlier.

2. The court examined the seizure and confiscation of goods under section 28(6) of the Act. It noted that the provision allowed for seizure and confiscation of unaccounted goods, subject to a prescribed inquiry process. Despite the petitioners' argument based on prior judgments, the court emphasized that the law was always available for enforcement by authorities. The court ruled that the department could recover the value of goods found liable for confiscation, even though the goods had been released to the petitioners earlier.

3. The judgment discussed the interpretation of judicial decisions regarding the validity of section 28(6) of the Act. It highlighted a subsequent decision that upheld the constitutionality of the section, distinguishing it from previous judgments. The court rejected the need for a Full Bench reference, as there was no binding difference of opinion between the Benches. It affirmed the validity of the Act and the legislature's competence to enact regulatory measures necessary for its enforcement.

4. The court addressed the request for a reference to a Full Bench due to alleged differences of opinion on the validity of section 28(6). It noted that the issue was not a conflicting opinion but a case of later judgment interpreting and explaining former judgments. The court agreed with the interpretation in the Transport Corporation of India case and dismissed the need for a Full Bench reference. The writ petitions were ultimately dismissed with costs, upholding the validity of section 28(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.