1992 (6) TMI 171 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the petitioner to obtain delivery notes in book form.
2. Legality of the respondents' insistence on issuing single delivery notes per occasion.
3. Allegation of discriminatory treatment against the petitioner.
4. Adequacy of statutory provisions to prevent tax evasion.
5. Validity of requiring advance payment of tax for issuing delivery notes.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of the petitioner to obtain delivery notes in book form:
The core issue addressed is whether the petitioner, a dealer in spices, is entitled to obtain delivery notes in book form from the statutory authority. The petitioner argued that the denial of delivery notes in book form creates significant hardship and impedes the transportation of goods. The court examined Section 29 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, which mandates that no person shall transport goods exceeding a prescribed quantity or value without a delivery note and a declaration in the prescribed form. The court found that the petitioner must possess these documents to transport goods within the state, even though the tax liability is not triggered at the purchase stage.

2. Legality of the respondents' insistence on issuing single delivery notes per occasion:
The respondents' practice of issuing single delivery notes per occasion was scrutinized. The court noted that Rule 33A provides for the issuance of delivery notes in book form and mandates the maintenance of a register in Form No. 19B by the dealer. The court concluded that the statutory framework supports the issuance of delivery notes in book form, and the respondents' insistence on single delivery notes per occasion is not justified. The court emphasized that the judicial audit of administrative actions is the responsibility of the court, focusing on the legality rather than the advisability of the respondents' procedures.

3. Allegation of discriminatory treatment against the petitioner:
The petitioner alleged discriminatory treatment, asserting that other assessees received delivery notes in book form while the petitioner was denied the same. The court found merit in this argument, noting that the denial of delivery notes to the petitioner alone is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The court highlighted that the petitioner is entitled to the same treatment as other assessees, and the respondents' actions were not supported by law.

4. Adequacy of statutory provisions to prevent tax evasion:
The court examined the statutory provisions designed to prevent tax evasion, including the establishment of check-posts, inspection of goods in transit, and penalties for tax evasion. The court concluded that these statutory devices and safeguards are adequate to check tax evasion. The respondents' apprehension that issuing delivery notes in book form may lead to tax evasion was deemed unfounded, given the existing provisions for penalizing tax evasion or misuse of forms.

5. Validity of requiring advance payment of tax for issuing delivery notes:
The court addressed the respondents' practice of requiring advance payment of tax before issuing delivery notes. It was noted that the petitioner had previously agreed to this procedure for transporting taxable goods outside the state. However, the court clarified that this case involved the transport of goods within the state, where the taxable event (last purchase) had not yet occurred. The court held that there is no legal basis for requiring advance payment of tax for issuing delivery notes for intra-state transport, and the petitioner is entitled to receive delivery notes in book form without such preconditions.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the original petition, directing the first respondent to issue delivery notes to the petitioner on payment of the specified fee. The judgment emphasized the petitioner's entitlement to delivery notes in book form, the discriminatory nature of the respondents' actions, and the adequacy of existing statutory provisions to prevent tax evasion. The petition was allowed, and the respondents were ordered to comply with the court's directions.