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 the provisions imposing obligations on transporters to furnish particulars, maintain accounts, and submit to search, seizure, and registration requirements under the Assam sales tax law were within legislative competence and valid.
Analysis: The Court held that the impugned provisions were machinery and preventive measures designed to curb tax evasion and were ancillary to the power to legislate on sales tax under Entry 54 of List II. It distinguished the Haryana decision on the ground that the Assam enactment, unlike the Haryana provision struck down for ambiguity, clearly brought transporters handling documents of title and persons in charge of goods carriers within its scope. The Court further held that the later registration requirement for transporters was comparable to the Tripura provisions already upheld as valid and did not infringe the petitioners' fundamental rights.
Conclusion: The challenge to sections 42, 44 and 46A of the Assam enactment and rule 21A failed, and the provisions were upheld as constitutionally valid.
Ratio Decidendi: Provisions imposing compliance, inspection, seizure, and registration obligations on transporters are valid when they are clearly defined, are reasonably and proximately connected with taxable transactions, and operate as ancillary machinery to prevent tax evasion within the legislative field of sales tax.