Appellate Tribunal Invalidates Proviso in Sales Tax Act, Deems Truck Confiscation Unlawful

The Appellate Tribunal found the third proviso to section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 ultra vires the Constitution as it exceeded the State Legislature's authority under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. The confiscation of trucks due to collusion for tax evasion was deemed beyond the scope of tax legislation. Relying on precedents like Check Post Officer v. K.P. Abdulla and Bros, the Tribunal quashed the confiscation orders, allowing the applications and writ petitions without costs, stressing the necessity of aligning statutory measures with constitutional limits.

---

---

Issues:
- Challenge to the vires of the third proviso to section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.
- Confiscation of trucks under the said provision.
- Competency of the State Legislature to provide provisions for confiscation.
- Allegations of collusion between transporters and traders.
- Legislative competence under entry 54 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
- Comparison with relevant case laws on legislative competence.
- Application of section 38 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.
- Previous penalties imposed on the transporter for collusion.

Analysis:
The judgment of the Appellate Tribunal addressed the challenge to the vires of the third proviso to section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The petitioners, including a transporter and an owner of trucks, contested the confiscation of their vehicles due to suspected collusion with traders to evade tax. The Tribunal noted that the State Legislature enacted the Act under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, empowering it to legislate on matters ancillary to preventing tax evasion. However, the power to confiscate vehicles was deemed beyond the scope of tax legislation, as observed in the case law Check Post Officer v. K.P. Abdulla and Bros. The Tribunal highlighted that the provision for confiscation was not incidental to the power to levy sales tax, emphasizing the need for a clear nexus between legislative competence and the impugned provision.

The petitioners argued that the confiscation provisions were ultra vires the Constitution, citing the deletion of the term "confiscation" from the Act in 1972 post a Supreme Court decision. They further contended that the State Legislature lacked the authority to include confiscatory measures in tax laws. The respondents, however, defended the confiscations, alleging repeated collusion by the transporter with traders to evade taxes, supported by past penalties imposed on the transporter. The Tribunal analyzed the legislative competence under entry 54 and compared it with the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, where similar provisions were held ultra vires in State of Haryana v. Sant Lal.

Considering the history of penalties imposed on the transporter for collusion, the Tribunal concluded that the third proviso to section 22A(7) of the Act was indeed ultra vires the Constitution. Consequently, the orders confiscating the trucks were quashed, and the applications under the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act and the writ petitions were allowed, with no costs imposed. The judgment emphasized the importance of aligning legislative provisions with constitutional mandates and ensuring a clear nexus between legislative competence and the scope of statutory measures.

---