1990 (12) TMI 296 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Unjustified interception of goods at a check-post.
2. Delay in issuing a branch certificate to a registered dealer.
3. Allegations of corruption and lack of supervision in government offices.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Unjustified interception of goods
The petitioner's goods were intercepted at a check-post due to a discrepancy in the sales tax registration number noted in the bill and the destination of the consignment. A security deposit was demanded for the release of goods. The petitioner, a registered dealer with a branch office, had complied with all legal requirements, including filing returns for the branch office's turnover. The court acknowledged the petitioner's compliance with the law and emphasized that a trader should not be subjected to arbitrary actions by taxing officials, as it violates the fundamental right to carry on trade under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

Issue 2: Delay in issuing branch certificate
The petitioner had applied for a branch certificate under section 14(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for its Trivandrum branch. Despite fulfilling all requirements and remitting fees, the branch certificate was not issued for nearly three years. This delay led to suspicion at the check-post regarding the existence of the branch, causing unnecessary hardships to the petitioner. The court appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to verify the branch's existence, which was confirmed. The court held that the delay in issuing the branch certificate was solely the responsibility of the Sales Tax Office officers.

Issue 3: Allegations of corruption and lack of supervision
The judgment highlighted the lack of effective supervision in government offices, particularly concerning the application for registration and issuance of branch certificates. The court criticized the inaction and noted instances of corruption, such as demanding "speed money" to expedite processes. The court emphasized the need for the government to streamline its administration to prevent corrupt practices and ensure efficient functioning of governmental activities.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, directing the release of goods, the return of the bank guarantee, and imposing costs on the responsible officers. The judgment also called for appropriate action by the government to address the issues of corruption and lack of supervision in government offices.