SWAPAN KUMAR PAUL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Civil Rule No. 3196 of 1994, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dated August 6, 1994, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes of Dhubri Zone, Dhubri, to the Superintendent of Taxes, Damra checkpost, Srirampur, Assam, asking him to verify the documents of all vehicles carrying items such as cow, goat, pigs, etc. , and bound for North-Eastern States and to enforce tax security by determining the value of the goods on the basis of current market price of such goods. And in Misc. Case No. 1327 of 1994, the petitioner has prayed for an interim order staying the said letter dated August 6, 1994, during the pendency of the writ application.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner carries on the business of selling livestock such as pigs, cows, ox, buffaloes, etc. , and for the purpose of such business transports livestock from the States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Assam and Meghalaya to Dimapur in Nagaland and supplies the same as per the terms and conditions of the permit issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland on yearly basis. In course of transportation of such livestock to Nagaland on trucks by the petitioner through the Srirampur Gate which is located near the border between West Bengal and Assam, the trucks are being intercepted by the respondents and call deposit against every such truck carrying livestock is being collected by the respondents from the petitioner. When the petitioner enquired as to why such call deposits are being taken from the petitioner, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri Zone, produced before the petitioner a copy of the impugned letter dated August 6, 1994, whereunder the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, has directed the Superintendent of Taxes, Damra check-post, to collect security in respect of trucks carrying livestock through the check-gate. Aggrieved by the impugned letter dated August 6, 1994, of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri Zone, Dhubri, the petitioner has moved this Court for quashing the said letter dated August 6, 1994 and for directing the respondents not to realise call deposit from the petitioner and its agents in respect of vehicles carrying livestock pending disposal of the writ petition on the ground that under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (for short, "the Act"), the respondents were not authorised to collect call deposit from the petitioner in respect of livestock being transported through the State of Assam for sale in Nagaland.

(3.) WHEN the matter was taken up for hearing on February 16, 1995. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since the petitioner was not selling livestock inside the State of Assam and was transporting livestock from places outside the State of Assam through the State of Assam to the State of Nagaland for sale in Nagaland, the petitioner was not liable to any sales or purchase tax on such livestock under the Act and that the only provision of law which was applicable for such transportation of goods from outside the State of Assam and bound for any other place outside the State is sub-section (15) of section 46 of the Act which does not authorise collection of call deposit from the petitioner in respect of such transportation of goods from outside the State to any other place outside the State through the State of Assam. Mr. Goswami further stated that under sub-section (15) of section 46 of the Act, the petitioner is required to obtain transit passes in the prescribed form from the officer-incharge of the entry check-post and return the said transit passes to the officer-incharge of the exit check-post. Mr. Goswami vehemently submitted that under the Act and Rules made thereunder there is no provision whatsoever to demand call deposit or any other security at the entry check-post in respect of goods which are yet to enter the State of Assam.