Transit declaration form valid under delegated authority, but seizure cannot rest solely on missing form without tax-evasion material.

Under the transit-control framework, a Commissioner's prescription of the transit declaration form and accompanying documents was valid because the statute and rules expressly authorised administrative determination of transit procedure, making the requirement a machinery provision aimed at preventing tax evasion. The principle that a thing required to be done in a particular manner must be done only that way did not apply where the rule itself empowered such prescription, so the form and circular were not invalid. However, seizure and security directions based only on non-production of the downloaded form, without material showing intent to evade tax and where other consignment documents were genuine, were unsustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner, Commercial Tax could prescribe the transit declaration form and documents to be carried during transit of goods through the State under the Act and Rules. (ii) Whether the principle that a thing required to be done in a particular manner must be done in that manner alone applied so as to invalidate the Commissioner-prescribed form. (iii) Whether the seizure order and consequential directions for security were sustainable on merits in the absence of material indicating intention to evade tax.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner, Commercial Tax could prescribe the transit declaration form and documents to be carried during transit of goods through the State under the Act and Rules.

Analysis: Section 52 required documents to be carried as prescribed, while Section 79 conferred rule-making power on the State Government and Rule 58 authorized the Commissioner to determine the documents and procedure for transit of goods. The scheme of the Act treated transit-control requirements as machinery provisions intended to prevent evasion of tax. The form prescribed by the Commissioner was substantially similar to the earlier form and operated within the regulatory framework rather than creating a new tax burden.

Conclusion: The prescription of the transit form by the Commissioner was valid and did not amount to impermissible sub-delegation.

Issue (ii): Whether the principle that a thing required to be done in a particular manner must be done in that manner alone applied so as to invalidate the Commissioner-prescribed form.

Analysis: The principle was held inapplicable because the relevant rule itself empowered the Commissioner to determine the documents and procedure. The earlier precedent relied upon by the petitioner concerned a situation where no such empowering rule existed. Here, the statutory and delegated framework specifically contemplated administrative prescription of the transit documents.

Conclusion: The maxim did not invalidate the impugned form or circular.

Issue (iii): Whether the seizure order and consequential directions for security were sustainable on merits in the absence of material indicating intention to evade tax.

Analysis: The goods were accompanied by other documents and the department did not dispute the genuineness of the consignment or the parties involved. The only deficiency was non-accompaniment of the downloaded transit form. The presumption of sale within the State was rebuttable, and on the facts no finding of tax-evasion intent was recorded. In these circumstances, the seizure based solely on the missing form was not justified.

Conclusion: The seizure order and consequential security directions were unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of the transit-form regime failed, but the seizure action could not be sustained on the facts of the case, resulting in quashing of the impugned orders in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory scheme governing transit of goods expressly authorizes the competent authority to prescribe documents and procedure for machinery purposes, such prescription is valid and the seizure of goods cannot be sustained merely for non-production of the prescribed transit form unless circumstances showing tax evasion justify the presumption.

---