9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (6) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als within the State of Assam as and when necessary. The petitioner is also a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, and the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, for the purpose of purchasing, selling and storing the goods aforementioned. 3.. On or about 7th February, 1981, respondent No. 2 addressed a letter bearing No. KGS/95/80-81/303-342 (annexure A) to the Kamrup Chamber of Commerce, Gauhati, for the purpose of circulating the same amongst the members of the Chamber-vide respondent No. 2 directed that any dealer intending to import finance taxable goods from outside the State of Assam by road transport should submit the prescribed form enclosed therewith before the Superintendent of Taxes and to cause the production of the said form duly filled up before the officer-in-charge of the check post together with the bills (sic). It was further directed in that letter that in absence of the said permit, the officer-in-charge of the check posts at Baxirhat, Damra, Charaibari, etc., will not allow the vehicle carrying the imported consignments of taxable goods to cross the check post. This was to take effect from 1st March, 1981. A per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntents of annexure A appears to be a direction to the dealer including the "petitioner" who has not been empowered to issue such directions either under rule 74 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Rules or under any other provisions of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and "the Rules", to impose a permit for the dealers intending to import finance tax goods from outside the State of Assam by road transport; (b) the authority has no such power to direct the dealers and/or the officer-in-charge of such check posts to comply with such directions. The learned counsel submits that under rule 74 of the Rules, the Commissioner can only issue instructions to the officer-in-charge of a check post but not to the dealers to furnish the declaration as in form XV; (c) the provision of section 32 of the Act does not empower the Commissioner of Taxes to direct a dealer to submit any such form (annexure B) though he may ask for certain information from the dealers as stated in sub-sections (1) to (4) of section 32 of the Act and not beyond that; (d) by introducing the system of permit (annexure B) the authority has put an unreasonable restriction upon the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat though annexure B was quashed, it would not cause any prejudice to the instructions of the Commissioner. 8.. Mr. P. Prasad, the learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has submitted that the present case of the petitioner is not covered by the decision of this Court in Electric & Furnishing Mart v. State of Assam (Civil Rule No. 217 of 1981) [1983] 52 STC 354 as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reason being, according to the learned Government Advocate, that the enclosure of annexure A to the present petition, viz., annexure B, is entirely different from that of annexure C of the said case which was issued under the provisions of rules 55 and 56 of the Rules with the word "permit" (sic). The present form and the directions as per annexures A and B were not the subject-matter of the earlier case and, as such the decision of that case is not at all relevant to the case at hand. The learned Government Advocate has drawn my attention to paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment in Electric & Furnishing Mart v. State of Assam (Civil Rule No. 217 of 1981) [1983] 52 STC 354 and has submitted that the form mentioned therein was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not challenged the vires of the rules viz., rules 71, 72 and 73 and not even rule 74 of the Rules. Thus, it appears, that annexure B attached to annexure A to this petition is only a prescribed form to be obtained by dealers from the Superintendent of Taxes for furnishing informations as per requirements stated therein with a declaration that the dealer is registered under the Act and holding certificate from the authority concerned to that effect with a further declaration that the dealer would duly account for the disposal of the goods and pay tax thereon according to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. This, according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, is neither an unreasonable restriction nor violative of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to the provisions of rule 74 which empowers the Commissioner to direct the officer-in-charge of a check post by specific orders in writing, to do or refrain from doing something if it is otherwise not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. On receipt of such direction, the officer-incharge of the check post shall carry out the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference to the particulars as embodied in the said form. It is a preventive measure as per the terms of rules 71, 72 and 73 so that no dealer can evade tax as required to be paid under the Act. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot v. State of M.P. [1958] 9 STC 388 (SC); AIR 1958 SC 908, Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema AIR 1965 SC 1107, Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Assam v. Mahadeo Jalan AIR 1973 SC 1023 and G.K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1975 SC 583, and has submitted that the measure is only regulatory in nature and therefore any such question as to the violation of the provisions of either article 301 or article 304 does not arise. I have carefully gone through the aforementioned decisions referred to me by the learned counsel and I am of the opinion, that annexures A and B are neither in any way violative of articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution nor is it beyond the competency of the authority of the Commissioner to issue such directions under the provisions of rule 74 of the Rules. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to annexures A an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undamental right to trade may be upheld if the commodity in which the trade is carried on is essential to the life of the community and the said restriction has been imposed for a limited period in order to achieve the desired goal." It was further held in para 21 of the judgment: "21. Finally, in determining the reasonableness of restrictions imposed by law in the field of industry, trade or commerce, the mere fact that some of the persons engaged in a particular trade may incur loss due to the imposition of restrictions will not render them unreasonable because it is manifest that trade and industry pass through periods of prosperity and adversity on account of economic, social or political factors. In a free economy, controls have to be introduced to ensure availability of consumer goods like foodstuffs, cloth or the like at a fair price and the fixation of such a price cannot be said to be an unreasonable restriction in the circumstances." In the case of V.G. Row AIR 1952 SC 196 their Lordships of the Supreme Court while determining the question as to what are reasonable restrictions, held: "It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
