G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) WHETHER first proviso to Section 37(6) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, "the Act") is ultra vires to the legislative powers of the State or is violative of the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on trade or business or the provisions of Part XIII of the Constitution of India is the main question which arises for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated January 15, 2001, passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Rewari (respondent No. 2).
(2.) THE petitioner is engaged in transport business and is having its own fleet of trucks. It entered into an agreement with Indian Petro Chemicals Corporation Ltd. (for short, "the IPCCL") for transportation of the latter's products to different places in the country. On November 26, 2000, respondent No. 2 detained its truck No. HR 38 -D/1185 on the allegation of transportation of goods without requisite documents and by the impugned order, he imposed penalty of Rs. 2,45,000 on the ground of contravention of the provisions of Section 37 of the Act.
(3.) SHRI K.L. Goyal argued that the first proviso to Section 37(6), which has been added by Haryana Act No. 12 of 2000, should be declared ultra vires to the legislative power of the State because subject -matter of the said proviso falls under entry 92 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and not under entry 54 of List II. He further argued that the impugned provision should be declared violative of Article 19(1)(g) because it affects the petitioner's right to carry on its trade and business without hindrance. He submitted that even though the statutory presumption created by virtue of the impugned provision is rebuttable, the authorities constituted under the Act have treated it to be irrebuttable and in all the cases, heavy penalties are being imposed without examining the explanation offered by the dealer and/or transporters for unintentional contravention of the provisions of Section 37. We have given serious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel, but have not felt persuaded to, agree with him and in our opinion, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.;