MEHTA RAMNATH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner in this writ application is a citizen of India and carries on business in potato, onion, green vegetables and fruits under the name and style of Messrs. Merita Ramnath at Digha Ghat in the district of Patna. He is a dealer registered under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act), as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner sells goods in Bihar as also in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. In exercise of their power conferred under Section 42 of the Act, the State Government, according to the case of the petitioner, have notified all the existing check posts and barriers established under Section 41 of the Act that a dealer is required to produce the duplicate and the original copy of form XXVIII-B before the authorities. After undergoing certain formalities, the consignment is allowed to be transported. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 46 of the Act, the Governor introduced and made Rule 31-C in the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called the Rules), by a notification dated the 24th March, 1972, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ application. In accordance with the said rule the petitioner was required to make an application to the appropriate sales tax authority for the supply of permits in form XXVIII-B to be used in accordance with Rule 31(1 A) of the Rules.

(2.) The petitioner's case further is that on the 23rd June, 1972, he applied to the Additional Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Patna (respondent No. 3), for the issue of (two volumes containing form XXVIII-B. Necessary postal orders and a satisfactory account of the forms issued to him in the past were appended to the application. By an order dated the 23rd June, 1972, respondent No. 3 said that under Rule 31-C no permit forms would be supplied to the petitioner unless he filed the return for the month of April, 1972, and paid the admitted tax on the same. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a nil return for the month of April, 1972. Respondent No. 3 by his order passed on the same day observed that as the petitioner had purchased onion from Nasik and sent the same to Siliguri in the month of March, 1972, he was liable to pay purchase tax under the Act on the said transaction, but he had not paid purchase tax for those purchases made in the month of March, 1972. Because the petitioner expressed his inability to pay the tax on the said purchases from Nasik, respondent No. 3 did not supply any permit, that means the volumes containing form XXVIII-B, under Rule 31-C of the Rules. He further directed that the same could be supplied to the petitioner only after he had, deposited the said tax which he termed as "admitted tax". A copy of the order is annexure 2 to the writ application. The petitioner attacks the constitutional validity of Rule 31-C framed by the notification (annexure 1) and asserts that the order of respondent No. 3 contained in annexure 2 is bad and erroneous in law on its face.

(3.) The further grievance of the petitioner in this very writ application is that though Section 42 of the Act read with Rule 31 of the Rules does not purport to impose any restriction on the inter-State movement of goods, the various Check Post Officers have been allowing the inter-State movement of the goods only after the petitioner is made to furnish permit in terms of Rule 31. The various Check Post Officers have been prohibiting transport of goods pursuant to the transactions which are not even of the nature of sale and purchase and restricting transport pursuant to transactions in the course of inter-State trade and commerce.