The Ludhiana Goods Transport Companies, Association, Ludhiana and ors. Vs. the State of Punjab and anr. - Court Judgment
|Court||Punjab and Haryana High Court|
|Case Number||Civil Writ Petn. No. 1141 of 1977|
|Judge|| O. Chinnappa Reddy,; B.S. Dhillon,; A.S. Bains,; Harbanslal and; Surinder|
|Reported in||AIR1977P& H357; 40STC244(P& H)|
|Acts||Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 - Sections 14B; Punjab General Sales Tax Rules, 1949 - Rule 56A, 56B and 56C; Constitution of India - Article 304|
|Appellant||The Ludhiana Goods Transport Companies, Association, Ludhiana and ors.|
|Respondent||The State of Punjab and anr.|
|Appellant Advocate|| Ujagar Singh, Adv.|
|Respondent Advocate|| I.S. Tiwana, D.A.G.|
.....appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act.
sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution.
- it was said that carriers like the petitioner were subjected to needless and harassing restrictions although they..........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.....
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.
1. 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.