Transit check-post provisions upheld as valid tax-enforcement machinery, including document inspection and coverage of through-traffic.

Section 37 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act and rule 45 were upheld as valid machinery provisions aimed at preventing sales tax evasion through check-posts, document verification, vehicle stoppage, and inspection of goods in transit; the requirements were held neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional under Articles 14, 19, 301 and 304. The provision was also held to apply to goods carriers entering, leaving, or merely passing through Haryana, and the first proviso to sub-section (4) was treated as a qualifying exception rather than an independent exclusion. Earlier objections could not be re-agitated where constructive res judicata applied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 37 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and rule 45 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 were unconstitutional as violating Articles 14, 19, 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether section 37, including the first proviso to sub-section (4), applied to goods carriers merely passing through the State of Haryana, and whether the petitioners were barred by constructive res judicata.

Issue (i): Whether section 37 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and rule 45 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 were unconstitutional as violating Articles 14, 19, 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The impugned provisions were designed to establish check-posts and barriers and to regulate inspection of goods in transit for preventing or checking evasion of sales tax. The scheme was treated as a valid machinery provision connected with tax enforcement and as consistent with the constitutional limitations already recognised in prior decisions upholding similar provisions. The requirement to carry and produce documents, stop the vehicle when required, and permit inspection was held to be neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional.

Conclusion: The challenge to the constitutional validity of section 37 and rule 45 failed.

Issue (ii): Whether section 37, including the first proviso to sub-section (4), applied to goods carriers merely passing through the State of Haryana, and whether the petitioners were barred by constructive res judicata.

Analysis: The language of section 37 was held to be broad enough to cover all goods carriers entering, leaving, or passing through the State. The first proviso to sub-section (4) was treated as an exception qualifying the general rule and not as an independent provision excluding the remaining sub-sections from application to through-traffic. The Court also held that petitioners who had raised, or could have raised, the same objection in earlier proceedings were barred by constructive res judicata.

Conclusion: Section 37 applied to transit goods carriers, the proviso was not independent of sub-section (4), and the petitioners were barred from re-agitating the issue where constructive res judicata applied.

Final Conclusion: The statutory check-post and transit inspection scheme was upheld in full, and the writ petitions were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisions enacted to establish check-posts and require production of transit documents for preventing tax evasion are valid machinery provisions, and a proviso qualifies the substantive clause unless the context clearly shows a separate independent enactment.

---