LexSARAL KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SARAL KUMAR
A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
JANUARY 12, 1996
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]
B
Haryana Sales Tax Act :
Ss.37, 38-Validity 0{-S.3/l already struck down in earlier
decisions-S.37 already held valid-Garificati011--Production of documents
C
i.e. challan, cash 1ne1no and bill-In case the driverlperson-in~charge nf
Carrier sati~:fies Sales Tax Officer that the said docu1ne11ts cnuld not be
produced by hitn, officer not to insist upon their p1vduction-Ho1rvever
produl·tion of goods carrier record or trip sheet or log book is obligatory and
cannot be dfapensed with.
D
Sales Tax Officer. Kanpur & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1995)
,.
Suppl. (1) S.C.C. 410, held applicable.
State o.f Haryan(!; & Ors. v. Sant Lal & Anr., (1993) 91 S.T.C. 321 and
Delite Carriers (Re11d.) v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1990) 77 S.T.C. 170,
E
relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 2122 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.8.94 of the Punjab and
F
Haryana High Court in C.W.P., No. 2674 of 1983.
Harish N. Salve, Ms. Rachna Srivastava and Ms. Rani Chhabra for the
Appellant.
Ms. Nisha Bagchi and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Respondents.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed
H
461
462
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] l S.C.R.
A
against the judgment of I.he Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the writ
petiiion partly. The writ petitioner challenged the validity of Sections 37 and
38 of the Haryana Sales Tax Act in the High Court. So far as Section 38 is
concerned, it was struck down by the High Court in an earlier decision which
has been affirmed by this Court in State ~( Harvuna & Ors. v. Sant Lal &
B
A111:, (1993) 91 S.T.C. 321. No further need be said with respect to Section
38 of the Act.
Coming to Section 37 of the Act, its validity was also upheld by this
Court in De/ite Carriers (Regel.) v. Stale of Ha~ya1w & Ors., (1990) 77
S.T.C. 170. Thus, the question of validity of Section 37 is also no longer in
Y
C
issue. However, Sri Harish N. Salve, learned counsel for the appellant, has
'
D
E
F
G
stated that it may be difficult for the appellant to· produce some of the
documents mentioned in Sub-Section (2) of Section 37. We may clarify the
issue, Section 37(2) reads as under :
"The owner or person incharge of the goods and when the goods are
carried by a goods carrier, the driver or any other person incharge
of the goods carrier, shall carry with him a goods carrier record, a
trip sheet or log-book (alongwith a challan as may be prescribed or
. cash me1norandu111 or bill as the case may be), in respect of the
goods meant for the purposes of trade and are carried by him or in
the goods carried and produce the same before an officer incharge
of a check post or barrier or apy other officer of the department not
below the rank of an Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer or such
other officer, as the State Government may, by notification appoint,
checking the goods carrier at any other place."
It is obvious from a reading of the sub-section that the sub-section
refers to two sets of documents. The first set of documents are goods carrier
record, trip sheet and log book. They are mentioned in the alternatives which
means that production of any one of these three documents would be enough.
The sub-section proceeds further and says that any of the said three
documents should be produced "along with a challan as may be prescribed
or cash memorandum or bill as the case may be". These three documents,
viz, challan, cash memorandum and bill may
be called second set of
docu1nents. These three documents are again n1cntioned in the alternative,
which means that any one of these three documents can be produced. In
H
short, one of the documents from the first set and one of the documents from
)
'
SARAL KUMAR v. STATE
463
the Second set have to be produced and that would be a sufficient compliance
A
with the requirements of sub Section (2). Sri Salve, ilowever, points out that
there may be situations where the person-in-charge of the goods/the driver/
or the person-in-charge of the goods carrier 1nay not be in a .position to
produce any of the documents in the second set, i.e., either the challan (as
prescribed t/y Rules) or the cash memorandum or the bill. It is clarified
B
herewith that in such a case, it is for him to satiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.