JAGANMOHAN REDDY, C.J.

These three writ petitions raise the following questions, namely, whether the Sales Tax Authorities have power (a) to levy penalty for non-production of way bills and (b) to confiscate and forfeit the goods found unaccounted for. In W.P. No. 358 of 1964 the Commercial Tax Officer, Guntur, by an order dated 17th February, 1964, directed the confiscation of 123 bags and 14 kgs. being 1/4th of 492 bags and 56 kgs. of paddy as unaccounted stock and called on the petitioners, a firm, to surrender the said quantity of paddy which had previously been released after the seizure of goods in favour of the assessee on 23rd July, 1963, on payment of Rs. 2,956 as cash security, representing its value. The assessee had tried to explain the excess stock of paddy as being due to the fact that while purchasing the paddy, it (the assessee-firm) weighs each bag at 77 kgs. and enters it in the B. Register at 75 kgs. setting of 2 kgs. as weight of the gunny bag. But this explanation was rejected, as it was found that a gunny bag weighs only 1 kg. and not 2 kgs. and that even this explanation does not account for the 492.56 bags. In W.P. No. 1554 of 1965, the Commercial Tax Officer had unearthed on 8th September, 1965, from a rice bag stored in a corner of a room in the mill of the assessee a slip relating to the mill. This slip contained amongst other items, 2 items relating to 238 bags of paddy received on 6th September, 1965, and 8th September, 1965. These bags were unaccounted for in the gate book khata or in any other book of the assessee, and consequently, the stocks were seized and were released on payment of Rs. 3,431 being half the value of the stock seized. He was asked to show cause within 7 days why the excess should not be confiscated. In the last of the writ petitions, 140 bags of ammonium phosphate worth Rs. 4,648 were seized from a lorry while being transported from Madras to Guntur, as they were not covered by the way bill issued by the consignor, for which a penalty of Rs. 690.20 being 5 times the tax due on the goods seized was levied.

In all these petitions, the contention of the petitioners is that the State Legislature has no power under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, viz., "Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers" to seize and confiscate the goods or to levy penalty. They submit that sub-section (6) of section 28 and sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") empowering seizure and confiscation and the levy of penalty respectively are repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution and ultra vires the State Legislature. At any rate, this power of seizure and confiscation under sections 28 and 29 of the Act, it is contended, is not ancillary or incidental to the power to levy tax on sale or purchase of goods and such a power is not in furtherance of the object of checking evasion of tax. It is further contended that inasmuch as no sale is involved, the confiscation of goods which are not accounted for in the registers and account books maintained by the dealers is ultra vires,

These contentions could have been easily disposed of because a Bench of this Court consisting of Chandrasekhara Sastry and Krishna Rao, JJ., in K. S. Papanna v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer ([1967] 19 S.T.C. 506) had held that the power to levy a tax includes all incidental powers to prevent the evasion of such tax and that the power to seize and confiscate goods is only by way of punishment or penalty, which is intended to operate as the most effective deterrent against tax evaders and it is therefore ancillary or incidental to the power to levy tax on the sale of goods and falls within the ambit and scope of the legislative power conferred on the State Legislature under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. It was further held that so long as the