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 section 28A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, as amended, was beyond the competence of the State Legislature and therefore unconstitutional.
Analysis: The substituted scheme under section 28A empowered check-post officers to require production of prescribed documents, levy penalty only where there was contravention or non-compliance without sufficient cause, and proceed against goods in limited circumstances. The Court distinguished the earlier Madras provision struck down in K.P. Abdulla because the Karnataka amendment had replaced the power of seizure and confiscation with a different penalty-based mechanism and had built in safeguards such as notice, hearing, proof of prior tax payment, and statutory appeals. The provision was treated as a measure directed to prevention of evasion of tax in respect of goods liable to tax under the Act, and therefore within the incidental and ancillary powers of the Legislature.
Conclusion: Section 28A, as amended, was held to be within legislative competence and not unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi: A check-post provision aimed at preventing evasion of sales tax, coupled with notice, hearing, and appellate safeguards, is constitutionally valid as an ancillary and incidental measure to the taxing power where it operates only in relation to goods liable to tax under the Act.