Ramesh Cotton Corporation and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

V.K. Singhal, J.—Validity of Section 28-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 has been assailed in these petitions. Proviso reads thus :

"Provided that where the goods carried in the goods vehicle or boat, as the case may be, is arecanut, cashew, cardamom, cotton, timber, pepper, coconut, copra, coffee, oil seeds, edible oil including vanaspathi, liquor or iron and steel or such other goods as may be notified by the Commissioner, the owner or person in-charge of a goods vehicle or boat shall carry with him in addition to the document mentioned in this sub-section, a delivery note obtained from the prescribed authority containing such particulars as may be prescribed."

From the perusal of the proviso it is clear that in respect of the specified commodities it is clear that it is mandatory on the part of the petitioners to furnish delivery note obtained from the prescribed authority. This provision is with a view to ensure proper payment of tax and curb the activities of evasion of tax. The provision of Section 28-A for establishment of check post is also for ensuring proper payment of tax. If the goods are to be inspected then providing a declaration to be carried therein cannot be considered to be an arbitrary exercise.

In the petition it is stated that in respect of transfers no sale is involved. Delivery note is not needed as it is not a sale. This contention has also no force. Delivery note with regard to delivery of goods may be for sale or under agreement of sale. The other contention raised is that the forms are not issued to the extent demanded. This cannot be considered to be a ground for declaring the provision as invalid. The contention raised is not sufficient to declare the provision as invalid. In State of Bihar and Others Vs. Harihar Prasad Debuka and Others, , it was considered by the apex Court that the requirement of carrying form is an exercise which is incidental to the levy of sales tax and is reasonable in public interest. In view of the judgment of the apex Court, these petitions are dismissed.