Check-post anti-evasion provisions upheld with procedural safeguards; writ relief declined in favour of statutory remedy.

Provisions regulating check-post verification and anti-evasion control in the movement of goods were upheld as a valid measure to prevent tax avoidance. Sub-section (4) was treated as a limited verification power with a seven-day maximum enquiry period; sub-section (8) was accepted as a discretionary procedure with hearing and security-based release safeguards; sub-section (10) was sustained as a deterrent against collusion, subject to hearing and prior approval; and sub-section (11) was treated as a permissible presumption where basic consignor and consignee details were not furnished. The writ petitions were also declined because an efficacious statutory appellate remedy was available, leaving the petitioners to pursue that remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sub-sections (4), (8), (10) and (11) of section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 were unconstitutional as arbitrary, excessive or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the petitioners could maintain the writ petitions in view of the statutory alternate remedy under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether sub-sections (4), (8), (10) and (11) of section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 were unconstitutional as arbitrary, excessive or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The provision was examined as a check-post and anti-evasion mechanism intended to prevent tax avoidance in the movement of goods. Sub-section (4) was held to be a limited verification power with a maximum enquiry period of seven days, which was not arbitrary merely because of possible misuse. Sub-section (8) was found to be discretionary, to operate on a different person than sub-section (5), and to contain procedural safeguards including hearing and release on security. Sub-section (10) was upheld as a deterrent provision for collusion between transporter and trader, with safeguards of hearing and prior approval. Sub-section (11) was treated as a permissible presumption where the transporter fails to furnish basic details of consignor and consignee. The provisions were held to fall within the State's legislative competence to enact measures for prevention of tax evasion.

Conclusion: The challenge to the constitutional validity of sub-sections (4), (8), (10) and (11) of section 78 failed, and those provisions were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners could maintain the writ petitions in view of the statutory alternate remedy under the Act.

Analysis: The petitioners were found to have an efficacious remedy under the statute, and the Court declined to enter into the merits of the individual detention and penalty disputes in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petitioners were relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions did not succeed, the impugned provisions survived constitutional challenge, and the parties were left to pursue the statutory remedy for any further relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory provisions enacted to prevent tax evasion in the movement of goods, and containing reasonable procedural safeguards, are not unconstitutional merely because they may be harsh or susceptible to misuse.

---