MOHAMMED HABIB UMMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions involve a common question of law and, therefore, they are disposed of together by this common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioners are dealers in betel-nuts and other goods. They are so registered under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. They (except the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 6525 of 1993) purchased betel-nuts from registered dealers of other States either by placing purchase orders directly from Cuttack or through their branches or agents in those States. The goods thus purchased are despatched from those States by trucks or other transport vehicles. They carry with them invoices, way-bills and other documents. The way-bills specify names of the consignors, names of the consignees and description of the goods including quantity or weight and value of the goods. It is the petitioners' case that even when the goods are thus accompanied by proper documents, the officers-in-charge of the check-posts or barriers misusing their power under section 16-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with rule 94 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (hereinafter called "the Rules") unreasonably detain the goods and on the plea that value of the goods is not correctly mentioned in the way-bills and the goods may not be accounted for in future because of such undervaluation, while selling them within the State, demand and under pressure recover sales tax in an arbitrary and illegal manner. It is also their grievance that before collecting sales tax they are not given notice as required by rule 94, nor reasons are recorded for the apprehension that there is likelihood of evasion of tax in respect of those goods. They, therefore, want this Court to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order directing the authorities to refund the sales tax so collected in respect of the consignments which are the subject-matter of these petitions. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of sub-sections (9) and (10) of section 12 of the Act. But at the time of hearing of the petitions, learned advocates appearing for the petitioners stated that they are not pressing the same and the petitioners will challenge the same as and when that becomes necessary. The prayer clause does not contain a prayer for declaring the said provisions as illegal or ultra vires.

(3.) THE question that arises for consideration is as to whether section 16-A and rule 94 justify such an action on the part of the officers-in-charge of check-posts or barriers. For ready reference, the relevant part of section 16-A is quoted below :