Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Superintendent of Taxes and the Commissioner could require registered dealers to obtain a permit in advance by filing the impugned declaration form for importing goods from outside Assam by road, and whether that requirement was a valid restriction saved by the Constitution.
Analysis: The Act and the Rules already contained statutory mechanisms for preventing evasion of tax, including restriction on movement, check posts, declarations in prescribed forms, and power to call for information. The impugned form introduced an additional pre-import permit requirement and sought particulars not contemplated by the existing prescribed forms. Although fiscal measures may include ancillary provisions to curb evasion, such measures must remain within the powers conferred by the Act and must not directly impede the free flow of trade, commerce and intercourse. The Court distinguished permissible regulatory safeguards from an unauthorized obstruction of movement and found that the impugned direction and specimen form were neither part of the prescribed forms nor supported by the existing rule-making framework.
Conclusion: The impugned direction and specimen form were held to be ultra vires the powers of the Superintendent of Taxes and the Commissioner and were quashed.