Transit-pass presumptions may validly support sales tax machinery provisions and rebuttable in-State sale inferences.

Ancillary transit-pass provisions under the U.P. Sales Tax framework are described as machinery measures aimed at preventing tax evasion. The text states that the State may use a rebuttable presumption of in-State sale when goods covered by a transit pass are not accounted for at the exit check post, provided the presumption does not alter the legal meaning of sale and remains open to rebuttal by evidence. It also records that the scheme is treated as a workable regulatory control, not an unreasonable restriction on trade, and that persons caught by the presumption may fall within the statutory definition of dealer for sales tax purposes.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether section 28-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and rule 87 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules were within legislative competence as ancillary and machinery provisions designed to prevent evasion of tax; (ii) whether the statutory presumption of sale on failure to produce the transit pass was a valid rebuttable presumption or an impermissible enlargement of the concept of sale; (iii) whether the impugned provisions were unreasonable, unworkable, or violative of articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution; and (iv) whether the petitioners, on the basis of the statutory presumption, could be treated as dealers liable to sales tax.

Issue (i): whether section 28-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and rule 87 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules were within legislative competence as ancillary and machinery provisions designed to prevent evasion of tax

Analysis: The charging provision subjected dealers to tax on turnover, while the impugned provisions operated only to regulate transit through check posts and to require a transit pass. The power to tax under entry 54 of List II included the power to enact ancillary measures to prevent evasion. The transit-pass scheme, including the documents and verification at entry and exit check posts, was treated as a machinery device to make the charging section effective.

Conclusion: The provisions were within legislative competence and were valid as ancillary and machinery provisions.

Issue (ii): whether the statutory presumption of sale on failure to produce the transit pass was a valid rebuttable presumption or an impermissible enlargement of the concept of sale

Analysis: The presumption arose only when goods entered the State under a transit pass were not accounted for at the exit check post. On those facts, a sale within the State was a natural and relevant inference. The presumption was treated as rebuttable, and evidence could be led to show that the goods had in fact been taken out of the State. The provision did not create an artificial meaning of sale but proceeded on sale as understood in law.

Conclusion: The presumption was valid and did not enlarge the meaning of sale beyond legislative competence.

Issue (iii): whether the impugned provisions were unreasonable, unworkable, or violative of articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution

Analysis: The scheme required only regulatory compliance in the form of transit passes and accompanying documents. It did not prohibit movement of goods or impose discriminatory restrictions on trade. The procedural mechanism was held to be workable even where consignments were transferred between vehicles, and it was considered necessary to prevent evasion of tax and protect legitimate revenue.

Conclusion: The provisions were not unreasonable or arbitrary and did not violate articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 301.

Issue (iv): whether the petitioners, on the basis of the statutory presumption, could be treated as dealers liable to sales tax

Analysis: Once the presumption of sale within the State operated, the petitioners fell within the statutory definition of dealer. The levy was connected with the transaction of sale and the persons in custody of the goods at the relevant time. The retrospective expansion of the definition of dealer was also treated as within legislative power.

Conclusion: The petitioners were liable to be treated as dealers for the purposes of the Act.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the transit-pass and presumption scheme failed, and the statutory provisions were upheld as valid revenue-protective measures.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxing legislature may enact ancillary machinery provisions to prevent evasion, and a rebuttable presumption that goods not accounted for at the exit check post were sold within the State is a valid evidentiary device when it does not alter the essential legal meaning of sale.

---