The State Legislature has the competence to make regulatory provisions to prevent evasion of taxes, and such provisions do not violate the fundamental rights of transporters.

This is an appeal against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 21.7.1995 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Civil Rule No.569 of 1994 with the findings that the rules which the petitioner challenged in the writ petition are neither unconstitutional nor ultra vires. Those are regulatory in measure an(l as such those rules are not oppressive and unreasonable.

2. We have heard Dr. AK Saraf, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. A. Chakraborty, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants who challenged the constitutional validity of the Tripura Sales Tax (11th Amendment) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), provisions of sections 29, 32 and 36A of the Tripura Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the notification dated 23.9.94 and 15.10.94 claimed to be transporters doing business of transporting goods after obtaining necessary registration. It is stated that the appellants being transporters they are acting as carriers within the meaning of section 2 of the Carriers Act, 1865 and on instructions from their clients they carry goods by road either within Tripura or to a place outside Tripura and for such services they are remunerated by their clients. The appellants are, therefore, nothing but transporters and they are not dealers manufacturing or importing taxable goods in Tripura.

4. But by virtue of the Rules, 1994 effective in the State of Tripura from 13th day of September, 1994 whereby sub-rule (3) has been inserted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 46A of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 and insertion of sub-rule (1) (a) after sub-rule (1) and substitution of sub-rule (2) in Rule 63 A in the old sub-rule (2) in the principal Rules and Rule 64A, the appellants have been debarred from carrying on their business unless they are registered as transporters with the Commisioner of Taxes in such manner as he may direct. It is stated that by virtue of insertion of sub-rule (3) after sub-rule (2) of Rule 46A of the Rules, the transporters are required to obtain Form XXIV from the Superintendent of Taxes concerned on payment of such price as may be specified by the Commissioner and such Form shall be serially numbered and account has to be maintained in the register.

5. It has been contended in the writ petition that the appellants who are transporters are merely carriers, trustees or bailees of the goods belonging to others for the time being and they are not engaged in selling goods at any point of time. Therefore, they are not dealers and hence the provisions for payment of penalty on composition of the offences is arbitrary. It has been further contended that furnishing of particulars under Form No.XXIV is nothing but an additional burden on the transporters and this is also contrary to the Carriers Act, 1865. The obligation cast upon the transporters by amendment particularly in Rules 46A (3), 63A (1) (a) and 64A are alleged to have been sought to equate transporters with dealers and hence this provisions are oppressive.

6. It is further contended that appellants being transporters the respondents are not entitled to make any provisions under Entry No.54 of List 2 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. It is stated that obligation put on the appellants Association to maintain accounts, to get themselves registered, to produce the books of accounts as and when demanded and also to procure form and imposition of penalty by way of composition of offences are in exercises of the powers conferred by Entry No.54, List 2 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and therefore, the said provisions of law are ultra vires and illegal. It has, therefore, been further stated that those provisions are totally violative of the constitutional provisions like Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 246 and 265 of the Constitution of India.

7. It is stated that sin