Transit-control tax presumption upheld as valid; writ relief declined because an effective statutory appeal existed.

A transit-control proviso under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a valid ancillary measure to prevent tax evasion. The Court held that a rebuttable presumption arising from failure to produce prescribed documents was a rule of evidence, not an irrebuttable liability, and therefore fell within the State's legislative competence without offending the right to trade or freedom of commerce. The writ petition challenging detention and penalty action was also declined because an effective statutory appellate remedy was available and no exceptional ground justified bypassing it. The constitutional challenge failed, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the first proviso to section 37(6) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, inserted by the amending Act, was beyond the State's legislative competence or violated the right to carry on trade and business and freedom of trade and commerce. (ii) Whether the writ petition challenging the detention and penalty order was maintainable in view of the availability of the statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the first proviso to section 37(6) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, inserted by the amending Act, was beyond the State's legislative competence or violated the right to carry on trade and business and freedom of trade and commerce.

Analysis: The impugned proviso was examined as a measure aimed at preventing evasion of tax in transit. A law enacted under the sales tax entry may validly include machinery provisions and incidental or ancillary measures to check evasion. The proviso created only a rebuttable presumption of an attempt to evade tax where prescribed documents were not produced, and it did not impose an irrebuttable liability. Such a presumption is a rule of evidence and operates only until displaced by explanation and proof. The provision was therefore held to fall within the State's legislative field and not to impose an unconstitutional restriction on trade or commerce.

Conclusion: The first proviso to section 37(6) was upheld as constitutionally valid and the challenge under article 19(1)(g) and Part XIII failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition challenging the detention and penalty order was maintainable in view of the availability of the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled rule that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked when an effective statutory appeal is available. No exceptional ground was shown to bypass that remedy in the present case.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge failed, and the impugned order was left undisturbed because the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A transit-control provision designed to prevent tax evasion, which operates through a rebuttable presumption and provides an opportunity to rebut it, is a valid ancillary measure within sales tax legislative competence; writ relief will ordinarily be declined where an effective statutory appeal is available.

---