Tax evasion controls upheld as valid regulatory measures; constitutional sanction objection also rejected.

Section 14-B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act was upheld after the Court found the President's sanction under Article 304 had in fact been obtained, defeating the constitutional objection. The Court also held that section 14-B and rules 56-A, 56-B and 56-C were valid regulatory measures aimed at preventing tax evasion, since requiring carriers to maintain proper accounts and documents and produce them for inspection was neither unreasonable nor beyond the delegated rule-making power. The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned provision and rules were sustained as lawful exercises of legislative and delegated authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether section 14-B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act was invalid for want of previous sanction of the President under article 304 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether section 14-B and rules 56-A, 56-B and 56-C of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules were unreasonable, not in the public interest, or beyond the rule-making power.

Issue (i): whether section 14-B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act was invalid for want of previous sanction of the President under article 304 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The challenge rested on the assertion that the amending Bill had not received the President's sanction required by article 304. The Government of India's letter conveying the President's sanction was produced before the Court, removing the factual foundation of the objection.

Conclusion: The challenge failed, and section 14-B was not invalid on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether section 14-B and rules 56-A, 56-B and 56-C of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules were unreasonable, not in the public interest, or beyond the rule-making power.

Analysis: The impugned provisions were directed to preventing evasion of tax. The Court held that requiring carriers to maintain proper accounts and documents and produce them for inspection was a legitimate regulatory measure. For the same reason, the Court found no unreasonable restriction and no excess of delegated authority in the framing of the rules.

Conclusion: The challenge to section 14-B and rules 56-A, 56-B and 56-C failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed because the impugned statutory provision and rules were upheld as valid measures for preventing tax evasion and as lawful exercises of legislative and delegated power.

Ratio Decidendi: Regulatory provisions imposed to prevent tax evasion and requiring maintenance and production of accounts are valid if supported by the requisite constitutional sanction and if they do not impose an unreasonable restriction or exceed delegated authority.

---