AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.—The other day, in C. W. No. 4154 of 1975. we upheld the validity of Section 14B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act against a challenge that it was beyond the competence of the State Legislature as it did not fall within the ambit of Entry 54 of List IT of Sch. VII of the Constitution. In the present application the vires of Section 14B is once again challenged, this time on the ground that it is violative of Art 304 of the Constitution. The first and main submission was that the previous sanction of the President as required by Art. 304 of the Constitution was not obtained for the introduction of the Amending Bill in the Legislature. The letter of the Government of India conveying the sanction of the President has now been placed before us by the learned Deputy Advocate General of Punjab- The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is therefore wholly without substance. The learned counsel then tried to argue that the restrictions imposed by Section 14B were not in the public interest and were un- reasonable. It was said that carriers like the petitioner were subjected to needless and harassing restrictions although they were not dealers and neither sold nor purchased any taxable goods. The same argument was advanced with regard to Rules 56-A, 56-B and 56-C of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules. It was also said that these Rules went beyond the rule-making power of the Government. There is no substance in any of the submissions. Section 14B and Rules 56-A, 56-B and 56-C are designed to prevent the evasion of tax and they are certainly in the public interest. All that the carriers are expected to do is to maintain proper accounts and documents and produce them for inspection when necessary. We are unable to see any unreasonable restriction. We are also unable to see in what manner the rule-making authority has gone beyond its authority. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs.