STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. versus ROAD TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, SILGURI AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 25-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ST ATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. 
v. 
ROAD TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, SILGURI AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 25, 2003 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941/West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 
1941: 
A 
B 
Ss.2(ia-1)-Explanation land ss.4C(6) and 4C(7)/rr.48L(4) and 48M- C 
Constitutional validity of-West Bengal Taxation Tribunal suspended operation 
of Explanation I to s.2(/a-1) holding it valid but vague and held that there is 
no machinery provision specifying the manner of disclosure-Tribunal also 
held sub-sections ( 6) and (7) of s.4-C invalid and unconstitutional and sub-
rule( 4) of r.48 as invalid observing that power to seize and sell the goods is D 
exercisable without purchase of goods by, and a proper assessment of purchase 
tax in respect of, a transporter of goods-On appeal, Held, there is no ambiguity 
in s.2(Ja-1) and Explanation I thereto-The requirements of Explanation I are 
clear enough-Not providing any proforma for declaring particulars under 
the Explanation would neither make it vague nor unworkable for want of any E 
machinery provision-Order of Tribunal in regard to Explanation/, set aside. 
Ss.4C(6) and 4C(7) of the Act and r.48L(4) of the Rules are not 
unconstitutional-The course of action incorporated in these provisions is 
meant to prevent evasion of tax due under the Act-It cannot be said that such 
a course of action can be taken by the authorities even without any purchase p 
of goods by a casual trader-The sine qua non for levy of tax under the Act 
is the purchase of the goods within the State-Jn the absence of any taxable 
event the goods will not be liable to tax and consequently no transporter can 
be made liable to pay tax at the entry point for his failure to disclose the 
information which is required under Explanation to s.2(Ja-1) of the Act-
Order of Tribunal is set aside. 
G 
It is made clear that order of Tribunal is not challenged in so far as it 
holds r-48M as unconstitutional. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8180 of H 
335 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.95 of the West Bengal Taxation 
Tribunal at Kolkata, in R.N. No. 148 of l 993. 
B. Sen, Rakesh Dwivedi, Dayan Krishnan and S. Mishra for M/s. Sinha 
B & Das for the Appellants. 
c 
Yashank Adhyaru, Satyajit Saha and Mrs. V.D. Khnanna for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
This appeal, by the State of West Bengal and its Commissioner of 
Commercial Taxes, arises from the judgment of the West Bengal Taxation 
Tribunal in R.N. No. 148/1993, dated April 7, 1995. 
The first respondent is an association of road transporters and the second 
D respondent is its Member and Secretary. The respondents challenged before 
the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') constitutional 
validity of the following provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 
1941, as amended in 1993. (for short 'the Act'): 
E 
F 
(i) Explanation-I to sub-section (I a-1) of Section 2; 
(ii) Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 4-C of the Act and 
(iii) the legality of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 48-L of the West Bengal Sales 
Tax Rules, 1941 (for short, 'the Rules'). 
The Tribunal took the view that Explanation-I to Section 2(1a-I) of the 
Act is valid but vague and that there is no machinery provision specifying the 
manner of disclosure and, therefore, suspended the operation of the said 
Explanation till a machinery for that purpos'' is provided; it was held that 
sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 4-C of the Act were invalid and 
G unconstitutional and consequently, sub-Rule (4) of Rule 48L was also invalid. 
The application of the respondents was thus allowed by the Tribunal by the 
order under cha:lenge .. 
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, 
contends that the approach of the Tribunal in suspending operation of the 
H Explanation to Section '2(1a-l) and declaring sub-sections (6) and (7) of 
STATE v. ROAD TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, SILGURI 
337 
Section 4-C of the Act and sub-Rule (4) of Rule of 48L of the Rules as A 
invalid and unconstitutional is erroneous and the decision untenable; the 
Tribunal has erred in proceeding on the assumption that the power to seize 
and sell the goods is exercisable without purchase of goods by, and a proper 
assessment of purchase tax in respect of, a transporter of goods, Mr. Adhyaru, 
the learned counsel for the respondents has expre

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.