1997 (8) TMI 465 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 14-B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 to animal-driven carts.
2. Jurisdiction and legality of the notice issued under Section 14-B.
3. Availability of alternative remedies under the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 14-B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 to animal-driven carts:
The petitioner contended that Section 14-B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, as extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, was not applicable to goods being transported in an animal-driven cart. The section was argued to apply exclusively to motor vehicles. The court examined the language of Section 14-B, noting that it primarily referred to "goods vehicles" or "vessels," both of which are defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Specifically, "goods vehicle" is defined in clause (8) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as "any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods." This definition does not extend to animal-driven carts. Consequently, the court concluded that the power to inspect goods in transit under Section 14-B did not extend to carriers other than motor vehicles or vessels. Therefore, the application of Section 14-B to an animal-driven cart was deemed incorrect.

2. Jurisdiction and legality of the notice issued under Section 14-B:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the notice issued under Section 14-B, arguing that the section was not applicable to the mode of transportation used (an animal-driven cart). The court agreed with this contention, stating that since "goods vehicle" is defined as a "motor vehicle," the proceedings initiated under Section 14-B were without jurisdiction and bad in law. The court emphasized that the entire scheme of Section 14-B relates specifically to the transportation of goods in a motor vehicle or vessel. As the primary condition (use of a motor vehicle) was not met in this case, the initiation of proceedings and issuance of notice under Section 14-B were held to be without jurisdiction.

3. Availability of alternative remedies under the Act:
The respondents argued that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not maintainable, as the petitioner had alternative remedies available under the Act, such as filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise and Taxation and subsequently before the Sales Tax Tribunal. However, the court noted that it could exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases where the order under challenge is without jurisdiction and bad in law. Given that the proceedings under Section 14-B were found to be without jurisdiction, the court decided to entertain the writ petition.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that Section 14-B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, as extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, was not applicable to goods being transported in an animal-driven cart. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings and issuance of notice under Section 14-B were declared without jurisdiction and bad in law. The writ petition was allowed, and the notice and proceedings under Section 14-B were quashed. No order as to costs was made.