Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1972 (9) TMI 112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment, according to the case of the petitioner, have notified all the existing check posts and barriers established under section 41 of the Act that a dealer is required to produce the duplicate and the original copy of form XXVIII-B before the authorities. After undergoing certain formalities, the consignment is allowed to be transported. In exercise of the power conferred under section 46 of the Act, the Governor introduced and made rule 31-C in the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called the Rules), by a notification dated the 24th March, 1972, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ application. In accordance with the said rule the petitioner was required to make an application to the appropriate sales tax authority for the sup .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on. The petitioner attacks the constitutional validity of rule 31-C framed by the notification (annexure 1) and asserts that the order of respondent No. 3 contained in annexure 2 is bad and erroneous in law on its face. 3.. The further grievance of the petitioner in this very writ application is that though section 42 of the Act read with rule 31 of the Rules does not purport to impose any restriction on the inter-State movement of goods, the various Check Post Officers have been allowing the inter-State movement of the goods only after the petitioner is made to furnish permit in terms of rule 31. The various Check Post Officers have been prohibiting transport of goods pursuant to the transactions which are not even of the nature of sale .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es apply to sales and consequent transport of goods in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. Or, the petitioner should give specific instances with details of different check posts, etc., where goods transported in the course of inter-State trade and commerce were not allowed to cross the border without fulfilment of the requirement of rule 31 of the Rules. Then and then only the grievance of the petitioner in that regard can be examined. 6.. The main grievance of the petitioner in this case, however, is with reference to the constitutional validity of rule 31-C and the propriety and legality of the order of respondent No. 3 contained in annexure 2. Learned counsel submitted the following points: (1) that rule 31-C is bad because .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the prescribed authority shall withhold the issue of such forms to him until such time as he furnishes: (i) such return or revised return, together with such receipted chalan or chalans, and (ii) any other return or revised return, together with the receipted chalan or chalans showing payment of the tax due according to such return or returns, for the furnishing of which the prescribed date or dates or the extended date or dates, if any, may have expired after the date of the application." It will thus be noticed that clause (b) of the impugned rule does not require the filing of any return or payment of the tax, but it merely provides that if the applicant is a defaulter in furnishing any return or revised return, together with the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion 14(1) of the Bihar Act does not empower the sales tax authorities to vary the prescribed period for which the returns are to be filed. It is particularly so when the dealer is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, as was the case in 30 Sales Tax Cases 151 and as is the case of the petitioner also. But the earlier order by which the petitioner was required to file monthly returns has not been challenged in this writ application; no copy of that has been annexed, nor has any fact been stated to challenge it. In that view of the matter, following that order, if respondent No. 3 asked the petitioner to file return for the month of April, 1972, it is difficult to reverse his order on the ground that his earlier order was with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates