1995 (2) TMI 396 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 29A(2B) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
2. Validity of a circular issued under Section 3(1A) of the Act.
3. Alleged unreasonable restriction on the free movement of goods.
4. Alleged arbitrary and discriminatory nature of the provisions.
5. Legality of the detention of goods by check-post officials.
6. Validity of Section 29A(2A) of the Act.
7. Validity of the third limb of Section 29A(2B) as struck down by the learned single Judge.

Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Section 29A(2B) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963:
The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of Section 29A(2B) of the Act, arguing that it imposed unreasonable restrictions on the free movement of goods by requiring the payment of tax at check-posts before the tax became payable under the Act. The court found that the provision authorizes the collection of tax immediately upon the transport of goods outside the state, even before assessment, to prevent tax evasion. The court upheld the provision, interpreting "payable" to mean "liable to pay at a future time," thus validating the immediate collection of tax to prevent evasion.

2. Validity of a Circular Issued Under Section 3(1A) of the Act:
The circular under challenge, issued by the Board of Revenue, empowered officers to demand and collect advance tax on goods transported if they believed the tax was unpaid or the dealer had defaulted. The court found that the circular was within the powers of the Board and was consistent with Section 29A(2B), thus upholding its validity.

3. Alleged Unreasonable Restriction on the Free Movement of Goods:
The appellants argued that the provisions and circular imposed unreasonable restrictions on the free movement of goods, violating Article 301 of the Constitution. The court held that the provisions aimed to prevent tax evasion and were not unreasonable. The court noted that with proper planning and anticipation, the practical difficulties highlighted by the appellants could be mitigated.

4. Alleged Arbitrary and Discriminatory Nature of the Provisions:
The appellants contended that the provisions were arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The court disagreed, stating that the provisions were enacted to prevent tax evasion and applied equally to all dealers transporting goods taxable at the last purchase point. The differentiation made in the manner of tax collection was found to have a reasonable nexus with the object of preventing tax evasion.

5. Legality of the Detention of Goods by Check-Post Officials:
The court held that the detention of goods by check-post officials was not unauthorized or illegal if tax was payable and had not been paid at the time of transport. In cases where dealers claimed that no tax was payable or had already been paid, the court suggested that any harassment or abuse of power by officials should be challenged before appropriate forums.

6. Validity of Section 29A(2A) of the Act:
The validity of Section 29A(2A) was also challenged, but no serious arguments were advanced. The court upheld the validity of Section 29A(2A) as held by the learned single Judge.

7. Validity of the Third Limb of Section 29A(2B) as Struck Down by the Learned Single Judge:
The State appealed against the judgment striking down the third limb of Section 29A(2B). The court found no reason to interfere with the learned single Judge's finding that the provision was unconstitutional. The court agreed that the provision was discriminatory and violated Article 14, as it authorized the detention of goods only for dealers in arrears transporting goods through check-posts, not for those conducting business exclusively within the state.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 29A(2B) and the related circular, finding them necessary to prevent tax evasion. It dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the learned single Judge's decision to strike down the third limb of Section 29A(2B) as unconstitutional. The court also upheld the validity of Section 29A(2A) and suggested that any specific grievances regarding the detention of goods should be addressed through appropriate legal channels.

← Previous Next →