Seizure and confiscation of unaccounted goods upheld as a valid tax enforcement measure against constitutional challenge.

A statutory provision authorising seizure and confiscation of goods not accounted for in a dealer's records was upheld as a valid enforcement measure under a fiscal law. The challenge that the provision conferred arbitrary power on commercial tax authorities and violated Article 14 failed, because the Court treated such stringent measures as necessary to curb tax evasion and support effective tax administration. Following the earlier Division Bench view, it found no constitutional basis to strike down the provision merely for being severe, and sustained the validity of the impugned section.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 28(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, empowering seizure and confiscation of goods not accounted for in the dealer's records, is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Analysis: The provision was challenged under Article 226 on the ground that it conferred arbitrary power on the commercial tax authorities. The Court followed the earlier Division Bench view upholding sections 28(6) and 29(3) as necessary and essential measures for the enforcement of a fiscal statute. It held that courts should be reluctant to interfere with such provisions, particularly in cases involving tax evasion, and found no basis to strike down the impugned section on Article 14 grounds.

Conclusion: Section 28(6) was held to be valid, and the challenge to its constitutionality failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision authorising seizure and confiscation of unaccounted goods in aid of tax enforcement is not unconstitutional merely because it is stringent, where it serves the legitimate purpose of regulating and enforcing a fiscal law.

---