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

B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, FAIZAN UDDIN
Saral Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


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





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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top