- (1.) These appeals from various orders of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') raise a common question as to the constitutional validity of provisions, mentioned hereunder, of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 [West Bengal Act XLIX of 19941] (for short, 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder. The Act came into force on March 23, 1995. It repealed the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 which was then in force.
(2.) The respondent challenged the constitutional validity of the following provisions of the Act : (i) Section 2 (6); (ii) Explanation to sub-sec. (1), sub-sections (5), (7), (8), (10), (11) and (12) of S. 11; (iii) sub-section (4) of S. 14; and (iv) Rules 172, 173, 174, 188 and 189 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the Rules'). The Tribunal held : "that S. 2(6) of the 1994 Act is valid and constitutional with a rider that until the manner of disclosure of name and address of the consignor or consignee is prescribed in terms of this judgment, the provision as to disclosure of those particulars shall remain suspended. Observations have also been made in the body of the judgment regarding the extent of responsibility of a transporter in furnishing the required documents and disclosing the required particulars. The Explanation below sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 is declared to be unreasonable and ultra vires the Constitution. The said Explanation is, therefore, struck down. As per paragraphs 20 and 21 of this judgment, parts of sub-sec. (5) of S. 11 and sub-sec. (4) of S. 14 are declared as invalid and unconstitutional to the extent they apply to a transporter. Sub-sections (7) and (8) of S. 11 and the words 'for the purpose of sub-secs. (7) and sub-sec. (8)' in clause (ii) of S. 11 (5) are struck down as invalid and unconstitutional and beyond the competence of the State Legislature. Sub-sec. (10), (11) and (12) of S. 11 are also declared unconstitutional insofar as they are applicable to transporters. Rules 172, 173 and 174 of the 1995 Rules are struck down for the reasons already stated. Forms 28 and 31 prescribed under the 1995 Rules are struck down insofar as they relate to advance tax or security in lieu thereof with reference to a transporter. Form 32 prescribed under those rules is valid. Rules 188 and 189 of the said Rules are valid subject to observations in this judgment in respect of transporters."
(3.) Mr. B. Sen, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants State, has contended that having upheld the constitutional validity of S. 2(6) which clearly provides the particulars to be declared by the transporter, there was no valid reason why the Tribunal should suspend the operation of the section so that portion of the order needs to be set aside. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in striking down the impugned provisions of the Act on the ground of lack of legislative competence ignoring the fact that the legislature has ancillary power to enact provisions to prevent evasion of tax. The learned counsel has argued that the Tribunal is clearly wrong in declaring Explanation below S. 11(1) of the Act as arbitrary, unreasonable so unconstitutional.;