Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether rule 89A(2) validly required the consignor to issue a written declaration in duplicate and the transporter or consignee to carry and produce it, and whether the rule was unreasonable or oppressive.
Analysis: Section 4B of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 authorized regulatory conditions for transport of notified goods with a view to preventing evasion of tax. Rule 89A(2) implemented that object by requiring a consignee or transporter to carry the consignment note, sale bill or similar document, and a written declaration in the prescribed form, while the consignor or his authorised agent was required to sign the declaration. The requirement was treated as a statutory mechanism to check tax evasion and not as an unreasonable burden on dealers. The clarification made by the Tribunal regarding non-production of the declaration was considered impractical and unnecessary in view of the proper meaning of the rule.
Conclusion: The rule was upheld as a valid anti-evasion measure, and the challenge to it failed.
Final Conclusion: The transport-declaration requirement under rule 89A(2) was affirmed as a lawful condition for movement of notified goods, and the appeal was disposed of without relief to the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: A transport-control rule requiring the consignor to issue and the transporter to carry a prescribed declaration is valid when it is directly designed to prevent evasion of sales tax.