Machinery provisions for sales tax collection upheld where purchaser details were required for enforcement, not to create new liability.

Rule 19-A and Form E under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax framework were treated as machinery provisions for collection of tax on declared goods, not as a new substantive limiting sales only to registered dealers. The rule was read as supporting assessment, levy and collection in the manner prescribed under section 6, and was therefore regarded as intra vires the charging provision. On the assessment challenge, the authority had verified the purchaser details, found the alleged buyers to be fictitious, and the assessee had not sought to produce them or ask for further opportunity. The assessment was sustained and the writ challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rule 19-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 and form E were ultra vires section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act; and whether the rule or form imposed a requirement that copra be sold only to registered dealers. (ii) Whether the assessment could be invalidated on the ground that the purchasers shown by the assessee were not established as genuine or registered dealers and no further opportunity was required to be given.

Issue (i): The levy on declared goods under section 6 was intended to operate at the rate and point specified in the Third Schedule, with assessment, levy and collection to be made in the prescribed manner. Rule 19-A and form E were treated as machinery provisions designed to facilitate effective collection of tax on last purchases. The requirement to furnish names, addresses and registration particulars of purchasers did not create a substantive condition that sales must be only to registered dealers. The rule was therefore read as advancing, and not transgressing, the charging section.

Conclusion: Rule 19-A and form E were held to be intra vires section 6, and no requirement that the purchasers must necessarily be registered dealers was accepted.

Issue (ii): The assessing authority verified the dealer lists, found the stated purchasers to be fictitious, and issued notice to the assessee. The assessee had itself furnished registration numbers, which were found to be false, and did not seek to produce the alleged purchasers or ask for further opportunity before the assessing authority. On those facts, the conclusion that the disputed turnover was liable to tax was not disturbed.

Conclusion: The assessment was upheld and the challenge based on alleged lack of opportunity failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected, the assessment was sustained, and the statutory collection mechanism for declared goods was affirmed as valid.

Ratio Decidendi: A provision prescribing the manner of assessment, levy and collection must be construed as a machinery provision that may validly require particulars enabling effective enforcement, so long as it does not impose a new substantive liability beyond the charging section.

---