Check-post detention under sales tax law is valid only when confined to tax-evasion prevention and backed by a valid activating notification.

Section 28-A of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, as substituted in 1979, is discussed as a check-post detention mechanism confined to goods brought into the State for business and liable to sales tax, where detention depends on recorded reasons and objective satisfaction that the transport was intended to evade tax. On that construction, it is treated as ancillary to the power to levy sales tax under entry 54 of List II and not repugnant to Article 301. The text also states that seizure or detention under section 28-A(6) requires a valid notification specifying the relevant quantity, measure or value, and that a notification issued under the earlier void provision could not support detention under the substituted section.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 28-A of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948, as substituted in 1979, was constitutionally valid as a provision ancillary or incidental to the legislative power to levy sales tax; (ii) Whether the seizure and detention of goods were lawful in the absence of a valid notification specifying the quantity, measure or value of goods under section 28-A(1).

Issue (i): Whether section 28-A of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948, as substituted in 1979, was constitutionally valid as a provision ancillary or incidental to the legislative power to levy sales tax.

Analysis: The substituted provision was confined to goods brought into the State in connection with business, liable to tax under the Act, and exceeding the notified quantity, measure or value. Detention could be ordered only if the officer, after giving an opportunity of hearing and recording reasons, was satisfied that the goods were being transported in an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under the Act. On this construction, the provision was aimed at preventing evasion of intra-State sales tax and did not extend to inter-State transactions or to goods unconnected with taxable business turnover. The provision was therefore treated as falling within the field of ancillary or incidental legislation under entry 54 of List II and was not repugnant to article 301.

Conclusion: Section 28-A, as substituted in 1979, was held constitutionally valid and within legislative competence.

Issue (ii): Whether the seizure and detention of goods were lawful in the absence of a valid notification specifying the quantity, measure or value of goods under section 28-A(1).

Analysis: The existence of a notification specifying the relevant quantity, measure or value was a condition precedent to exercise of power under section 28-A(6). The only notification relied upon had been issued under the earlier section 28-A that had been declared void, and no fresh notification had been issued under the substituted provision. The validating Ordinance did not retrospectively revive the original notification or create the necessary legal foundation for its operation under the new section. The earlier notification was therefore treated as non-existent in law for the purpose of sustaining the impugned detention.

Conclusion: The seizure and detention were unlawful for want of a valid notification under section 28-A(1).

Final Conclusion: The challenge failed on the constitutional validity of section 28-A as construed by the Court, but succeeded on the legality of the impugned detention because the statutory precondition of a valid notification was absent; the writ petitions were allowed and the goods were directed to be returned.

Ratio Decidendi: A check-post detention provision is constitutionally valid when it is confined to preventing evasion of tax on taxable business turnover and operates only on objective satisfaction with recorded reasons, but detention under such a provision is invalid unless the notification that activates the statutory threshold is in force under a valid legislative source.

---