Check-post and declaration requirements upheld as valid tax-control measures regulating goods transport without violating equality or trade freedom.

Check-post and declaration requirements for transporting goods were upheld as a reasonable anti-evasion measure: the classification between rail and road transport was held rational because private motor transport created a legitimate risk of sales tax evasion, so Article 14 was not violated. The system was also treated as a regulatory safeguard, not a prohibition on inter-State trade, because carriers remained free to do business and only had to furnish prescribed particulars, so Article 304 was not offended. The notification on fine for breach was valid because it merely reflected the penal consequence already authorised by the parent Act and did not create a new offence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the check posts and declaration requirements introduced for transport of goods were invalid as denying equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the requirements imposed an impermissible restriction on inter-State trade under Article 304 of the Constitution of India; (iii) Whether the notification imposing liability to fine for breach of the section and rule was unauthorised.

Issue (i): Whether the check posts and declaration requirements introduced for transport of goods were invalid as denying equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The challenge rested on the distinction between transport by rail and transport by road. The classification was upheld as rational because railway consignments were supported by railway receipts and were subject to a public transport system with safeguards as to description and weighing of goods, whereas private motor transport raised a legitimate apprehension of evasion of sales tax. The measure was linked to the object of preventing tax evasion and was therefore based on a reasonable classification having nexus with the legislative purpose.

Conclusion: The provisions did not violate Article 14 and were valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the requirements imposed an impermissible restriction on inter-State trade under Article 304 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court treated the check-post system and declaration form as a regulatory device rather than a trade prohibition. The operator remained free to carry on business, and the only burden was to furnish particulars of the transported goods in the prescribed form. The requirement was designed to assist the sales tax authorities and did not amount to a restriction on the business of transport or on inter-State movement of goods.

Conclusion: The provisions did not offend Article 304 and were valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the notification imposing liability to fine for breach of the section and rule was unauthorised.

Analysis: The notification was construed as merely indicating the statutory consequence already provided by the parent Act. The penalty did not arise from the notification itself, but from the penal provision making wilful contravention of the Act or the Rules punishable by fine. Since the Act already authorised punishment for breach, the notification neither created a new offence nor imposed a penalty without authority.

Conclusion: The notification was within authority and valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the check-post provisions, the declaration requirement, and the consequential notification failed, and the petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax-control measure regulating transport of goods is valid where it rests on a reasonable classification, operates as a regulatory safeguard rather than a trade prohibition, and does not create any punishment beyond what the parent statute already authorises.

---