1994 (8) TMI 286 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Validity of sections 37 and 38 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 as amended by the Haryana General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns the vires of sections 37 and 38 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, as amended by the Haryana General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983. The petitioners in various writ petitions challenged the requirement for contractors of railway booking agencies to obtain a license and provide transaction details under the amended provisions. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus declaring sections 37 and 38 as illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional, and null and void. The court noted that the facts in the petitions were substantially similar, except for one case. In a separate case, the petitioner was appointed as an agent for a railway out-agency and was required to furnish details of consignees and consignors, leading to a challenge of section 37 and related notices.

The court referred to previous judgments to analyze the vires of sections 37 and 38. In Babu Ram Golyani v. State of Haryana, the court held section 38 and related rules to be ultra vires, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Sant Lal. As section 38 was deemed ultra vires, the court held that no action could be taken in accordance with it, leading to the petitions being allowed in that regard. Regarding section 37, the court cited the decision in Delite Carriers (Regd.) v. State of Haryana, where the provisions of section 37 were upheld. The court also mentioned the decision in Monga Road Lines (Regd.) v. State of Haryana, affirming the validity of section 37, check-posts, barriers, and inspection provisions.

In one of the petitions, the petitioner argued against the necessity of special checks at sales tax barriers for goods booked at the out-agency, citing compliance with railway manual provisions. However, the court held that such matters relate to legislative policy and upheld the impugned provisions, as they had been validated by the apex court. Consequently, the court partly allowed the writ petitions, ruling that the petitioners were not required to comply with section 38, and quashed related compliance notices. The establishment of sales tax check barriers under section 37 was upheld, leading to the disposal of the petitions accordingly.

In conclusion, the court partially allowed the writ petitions, holding that compliance with section 38 was not required for the petitioners, while upholding the establishment of sales tax check barriers under section 37. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the vires of the relevant sections based on previous legal precedents and legislative policy considerations.