SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 88

1996(1) Supreme 617
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. Jeevan Reddy & Faizan Uddin, JJ.
Saral Kumar -Appellant
versus
State of Haryana & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2122 of 1996
Decided on 12-1-1996
Counsel for the parties :
For the Appellant : Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Rachna Srivastava & Ms. Rani Chhabra, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Nisha bagchi and ms. indu Malhotra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
One of the three documents from first set (viz. goods carrier record or trip sheet or log book) and one of the three documents in second set (viz. challan, cash memorandum or bill) have to be produced and that would be a sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 37(2) of Haryana Sales Tax Act.

Headnote:(i) Haryana Sales Tax Act-Sections 37 and 38-Section 38 is struck down by High Court and confirmed by Supreme Court-But Section 37 is valid. (Paras 2 and 3)

       (ii) Haryana Sales Tax Act-Section 37(2)-Clarification of documents required to be produced under it-Two sets of documents-Consisting of 3 documents each-One of the document in both sets has to be produced-Production of one of the documents in first set is mandatory and that of second set is directory.

       (Para 4)

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the writ petition partly. The writ petitioner challenged the validity of Sections 37 and 38 of the Haryana Sales Tax Act in the High Court. So far as Section 38 is concerned, it was struck down by the High Court in an earlier decision which has been affirmed by this Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Sant Lal & Anr.1 No further need be said with respect to Section 38 of the Act.

3. Coming to Section 37 of the Act, its validity was also upheld by this Court in Delite Carriers (Regd.) v. State of Haryana & Ors.2 Thus, the question of validity of Section 37 is also no longer in issue. However, Sri Harish N. Salve, learned counsel for the appellant, has stated that it may be difficult for the appellant to produce some of the documents mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 37. We may clarify the issue. Section 37(2) reads as under :

"The owner or person incharge of the goods and when the goods are carried by a goods carrier, the driver or any other person incharge of the goods carrier, shall carry with him a goods carrier record, a trip sheet or log-book (alongwith a challan as may be prescribed or cash memorandum or bill as the case may be), in respect of the goods meant for the purposes of trade and are carried by him or in the goods carrier and produce the same before an officer incharge of a check post or barrier or any other officer of the department not below the rank of an Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer or such other officer, as the State Government may, by notification appoint, checking the goods carrier at any other place."

4. It is obvious from a reading of the sub-section that the sub-section refers to two sets of documents. The first set of documents are goods carrier record, trip sheet and log book. They are mentioned in the alternatives which means that production of any one of these three documents would be enough. The sub-section proceeds further and says that any of the said three documents should be produced "alongwith a challan as may be prescribed or cash memorandum or bill as the case may be". These three documents, viz., challan, cash memorandum and bill may be called second set of documents. These three documents are again mentioned in the alternative, which means that any one of these three documents can be produced. In short, one of the documents from the first set and one of the documents from the second set have to be produced and that would be a sufficient compliance with the requirements of sub-section (2). Sri Salve, however, points out that there may be situations where the person-in-charge of the goods/the driver/or the person-in-charge of the goods carrier may not be in a position to produce any of the documents in the second set, i.e., either the challan (as prescribed by Rules) or the cash memorandum or the bill. It is clarified herewith that in such a case, it is for him to satisfy the concerned sales tax authority that it is not possible for him to produce any of the said three documents. If the officer is so satisfied, he will not insist upon the production of any of the said three documents, viz., the challan, cash memorandum or bill. It is also clarified that so far as the production of goods carrier record or trip sheet or log book is concerned, production of any one of them is obligatory and cannot be dispensed with.

5. The Authorities may examine the appellant s case in the light of the above clarification.

6. In all other aspects, the decision of this Court in Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.3, shall apply herein. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. No costs.

Appeal disposed of accordingly.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top