Ancillary tax-compliance duties for transporters upheld as valid machinery measures and not a restraint on trade.

Provisions requiring transporters to maintain accounts, furnish declarations, obtain registration, and face penal consequences were upheld as ancillary machinery measures connected with preventing sales tax evasion. They were within the State Legislature's competence under the taxing power because they did not treat transporters as dealers or impose tax liability on them, and the enforcement provisions operated only to secure compliance with the regulatory scheme. The registration requirement was also upheld as a reasonable regulatory measure linked to check-post control and disclosure of consignments, and it was not treated as a direct restraint on trade under Article 301.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the provisions requiring transporters to maintain accounts, furnish declarations, obtain registration, and face penal consequences were beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and ultra vires the Constitution. (ii) Whether the requirement of registration of transporters under the impugned provision violated the freedom of trade under Article 301 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the provisions requiring transporters to maintain accounts, furnish declarations, obtain registration, and face penal consequences were beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and ultra vires the Constitution.

Analysis: The challenged provisions were examined as part of the machinery for preventing evasion of sales tax and for identifying the consignor, consignee, goods, quantity, value and destination of taxable goods. The obligations imposed on transporters were held to be ancillary and subsidiary to the taxing power under Entry 54 of List II, because they did not cast the transporter as a dealer or impose tax liability on him. The penal provisions operated only when a person failed to produce required documents or made a false declaration, and the composition and seizure provisions were treated as enforcement devices within the same regulatory scheme.

Conclusion: The impugned provisions were within the legislative competence of the State Legislature and were not ultra vires on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the requirement of registration of transporters under the impugned provision violated the freedom of trade under Article 301 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The registration requirement was treated as a regulatory measure connected with the checking of tax evasion through check-posts, interception, search, seizure, and disclosure of consignments. It was held to operate only in relation to transport business involving taxable goods and to serve the public interest by facilitating tax enforcement. Such a requirement was found to be a reasonable restriction and not a direct impediment to the free flow of trade.

Conclusion: The registration requirement did not violate Article 301 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The challenged provisions were upheld as valid regulatory and machinery provisions supporting the sales tax regime, and the transporters' challenge failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisions imposed on non-dealers are valid if they are ancillary machinery measures reasonably connected with preventing tax evasion and do not themselves impose the dealer's tax liability or an impermissible restraint on trade.

---