Trade tax form validity upheld as an anti-evasion measure; reading down rejected for belated declarations.

The amended Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Rules 12-A(5), 12-B(4), 12-C(3) and 25-B(3) were examined in light of their validity and enforceability, including whether delayed declaration forms could be accepted by reading the provisions down. The rules limited the validity of forms to transactions of the relevant financial year and the two preceding years, with only narrow transitional relief. The Court treated the restrictions as anti-evasion measures within the rule-making power under the Trade Tax Act, held that fiscal hardship to individual dealers did not make the scheme arbitrary, and declined to read the rules down because that doctrine cannot be used to rewrite valid provisions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended Rules 12-A(5), 12-B(4), 12-C(3) and 25-B(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Rules, as introduced by the U.P. Trade Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2001, were valid and enforceable, and whether they could be read down so as to admit declaration forms furnished belatedly on the plea of genuine difficulty.

Analysis: The amended rules provided that forms issued in a financial year would remain valid only for transactions of that year and the two preceding financial years, with limited transitional concessions. The challenge to these provisions had already been repelled in earlier decisions dealing with the same statutory scheme, where the rule-making power under the Trade Tax Act was upheld and the restrictions were treated as measures designed to prevent misuse of statutory forms and tax evasion. The Court accepted that the object of the amendment was to curb evasion, that the restrictions were reasonable in fiscal matters, and that hardship to individual dealers did not by itself render the rules arbitrary or unconstitutional. It also held that once the provisions were found valid, there was no occasion to read them down in the manner suggested, since reading down is a tool to save a provision and not to rewrite it.

Conclusion: The amended rules were upheld as valid, the plea for reading them down was rejected, and the writ petitions failed.

---