Section 28 of the U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1956, and Rule 83 of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules are not inconsistent with Articles 14 and 304 of the Constitution.

M. L. CHATURVEDI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 220 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing certain Notifications issued by the respondents, and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to enforce the provisions contained in Section 16 of the u. P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act XIX of 1956 and also the provisions contained in Rule 83 of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a transport company which transports goods for hire between Delhi and certain towns in the State of Uttar Pradesh. While coming from Delhi, its vehicles have to pass in some cases through Ghaziabad in the district of Meerut and in other cases through Kosi Kalan in the district of Mathura. The original Sales Tax Act did not contain any provision for setting of check barriers at places where the vehicles entered the State, of Uttar Pradesh. The State legislature passed the U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1956, adding Section 28 to the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.

( 3 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 28 provides that the State Government may set up and erect, in such manner as may be prescribed, check posts and barriers at any place in the State with a view to prevent evasion of Sales Tax and other dues payable under this Act. Sub-section (2) then casts a duty on every person transporting such goods to file before an officer a declaration in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. Subsection (3) authorises the officer concerned to intercept end search any vehicle for the purpose of satisfying himself that the correct declaration under Sub-section (2) has been given. After the enactment of the above section, Rule 83 was added to the Rules and this rule lays down the details for the establishment of the check posts. The petitioner appears to dislike the provisions of the section and the rule. Hence this petition.

( 4 ) THE first point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the new section and the rule are void because they are inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. The argument is that no such check posts have been created in respect of the goods transported by the railway company, whereas the check posts have been created in respect of the goods transported otherwise. It is argued that this is an advantage to the railway company over other transport systems and this section is therefore not enforceable, i do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel because so far as the railways are concerned there is a railway receipt granted, which gives the description of the goods and also mentions the name of the consignor and the consignee. In the case of transport of goods by the railway company it is unthinkable that the railway company may transport more goods than are shown in the receipt. The railway administration is a Public concern and it is run according to the rules framed under the Railways Act, which clearly provide that all the goods transported should be properly weighed and described. In the case of transport by railways there is no ground for any apprehension that a less quantity of goods will be shown as having been consigned, whereas in the case of private motor transport an apprehension was felt by the Legislature, and it clearly stated in Sub-section (1) of Section 28 that the check posts may be set up with a view to prevent the evasion of sales tax and other dues payable under the Sales Tax Act. I think this is a permissible classification which has been made by the Legislature. The classification is quite a reasonable one and it relates to the object of the enactment. The practices which may be resorted to by private motor and other transports are not thinkable in the case of railways.

( 5 ) THE next point argued is that the erection of check posts is an interference with interstate trade and is inconsistent with Article 304 of the Constitution. I do not think that this contention has any force either. No check has been impo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document