TRIPURA GOODS TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant-Association which is doing the business of transporting goods within and outside the State of Tripura, is aggrieved by the judgment of the Gauhati High Court dismissing the writ Appeal challenging the constitutional validity of the Tripura Sales Tax (11th Amendment) Rules, 1994, (for short 'the Rules') and Sections 29, 32 and 36-A of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, (for short 'the Act') including notifications dated 23rd September, 1994 and 15th October, 1994. By means of the aforesaid 11th Amendment, sub-rule (3) has been inserted after sub-rule (2) of Rule 46-A of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976, (for short 'Principal Rules'), sub-rule (1-A) has been inserted after sub-rule 63-A (1), sub-rule (2) in Rule 63-A has been substituted in place of old sub-rule (2) of the principal Rules and Rule 64-A has been substituted for the old sub-rule 64-A. The resultant effect of such amendment is that the appellants, who are working as Transporters in Tripura, are required to obtain a Certificate of Registration and to comply with various other formalities as prescribed under the Act and the Rules, viz., to maintain accounts according to the prescription made by the respondents under Section 36-A of the Act for carrying on transport business while entering into or going outside the State of Tripura including making the declaration in Form XXIV, which is challenged to be beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and ultra vires the Constitution offending Articles 14, 18 (1)(g), 246, 265, 286, 300-A and 301 of the Constitution of India. The challenge is based on the ground that the appellants are Transporters and are not dealers within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the said Act, hence obligation cast on them under the Act and Rules are beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature.

(3.) By a reasoned order, the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition of the appellants, except the challenge to the validity of Rule 63-A (2) of the principal Rules. However, the challenge made by the appellants regarding constitutional validity of Section 36-A, which requires a carrier to maintain proper accounts of goods transported to or outside Tripura in the manner prescribed, was not entertained by the learned single Judge. In appeal before the Division Bench, though foundation was laid but specific prayer for declaration of Section 36-A as ultra vires was not made due to inadvertence, hence the appellants sought amendment to the prayer at the appellate stage which was granted, accordingly it was incorporated at the appellate stage. The Division Bench also dismissed the appeal of the appellants. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.