S. C. AGRAWAL and FAROOQ HASAN, JJ. - (1.) M/s. Sarna Transport Corporation, the petitioner in this writ petition, carries on business as carrier of goods. The case of the petitioner is that in connection with the said business the vehicles of the petitioner carrying goods from States other than the State of Rajasthan pass through the State of Rajasthan. The case of the petitioner is further that the goods are not brought into the State of Rajasthan from another State and goods are not taken out from the State of Rajasthan to another State by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the provisions contained in section 22a of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and rules 61 to 63 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ). The petitioner has also prayed that a suitable writ, order or direction may be issued directing the State of Rajasthan to bring into force the provisions of section 22b of the Act.
(2.) SECTION 22a of the Act makes provision for establishment of check-posts or barriers and for inspection of goods while in transit. Rule 61 of the Rules makes provision with regard to empowering the officers who can exercise the powers under section 22a. Rule 62 is in the nature of an interpretation clause. Rule 62a prescribes the particulars required to be mentioned in the documents referred to in section 22a (3) of the Act. Rule 62b provides for furnishing of a declaration regarding registration certificate, etc. , by a consignee of the goods in case of goods entering the State limits. Rule 63 provides for delivery of documents and seizure of goods. It may be mentioned that the validity of section 22a of the Act has been considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Gill Sandhu Haryana Transport Co. v. State of Rajasthan (1986) RLR 49 wherein this Court has upheld the validity of the said provision. The said decision of the learned single Judge has been affirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated January 16, 1986, in Gill Sandhu Haryana Transport Co. v. State of Rajasthan (D. B. Special Appeal No. 251 of 1985) [reported in (1988) 25 STL 26 (Raj ). ]. The matter now stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Roadways Corporation v. State of Rajasthan (Writ Petitions Nos. 1555 and 1556 of 1983 decided on April 23, 1986), in which the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the provisions contained in sections 22a and 22b of the Act and rules 61, 62, 62a, 62b and 63 and forms 18-A and 18-B of the Rules. The same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Transport Corporation v. State of Rajasthan (Writ Petition No. 1517 of 1986 decided on November 17, 1987 ). Shri Ratta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that in the decisions referred to above the Supreme Court has failed to note that section 22b of the Act has not yet been brought into force and that if this fact had been noticed by the Supreme Court, they would not have affirmed the validity of section 22a as well as rules 61 to 63 and forms 18-A and 18-B of the Rules. It has also been urged by Shri Ratta that the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court are based on the earlier decision in Sodhi Transport Co. v. State of U. P. [1986] 62 STC 381; AIR 1986 SC 1099 and that in Sodhi Transport Co. case [1986] 62 STC 381; AIR 1986 SC 1099, the Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act wherein section 28b was similar to section 22b of the Act. Shri Ratta has pointed out that section 28b of the U. P. Act had been made applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh whereas section 22b of the Act has not been made applicable in Rajasthan. Shri Ratta has also urged that the decision of the Supreme Court in Sodhi Transport Co. case [1986] 62 STC 381; AIR 1986 SC 1099 does not lay down the correct law and is in conflict with earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Check Post Officer, Coimbatore v. K. P. Abdulla and Bros. [1971] 27 STC 1 and Hansraj Bagrecha v. State of Bihar [1971] 27 STC 4. We have given our careful consideration to the aforesaid submissions of Shri Ratta but we are unable to accept the same. In our opinion the present case stands concluded by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Transport Corporation v. State of Rajasthan (Writ Petition No. 1517 of 1986 decided on November 17, 1987) and Indian Roadways Corporation v. State of Rajasthan (Writ Petition Nos. 1555 and 1556 of 1983 decided on April 23, 1986) wherein the validity of provisions of section 22a as well as rules 61, 62, 62a, 62b and 63 and forms 18-A and 18-B of the Rules has been upheld. The fact that the provisions of section 22b of the Act have not been brought into force as yet is of no consequence because under sub-section (1) of section 22b of the Act a provision has been made for issuance of transit passes in relation to goods in transit and in sub-section (2) it has been provided that if a person fails to deliver a transit pass in respect of any goods referred to in the said section or is found to have suppressed or given false particulars of any consignment of goods in his application for issue of transit pass, a presumption is to be drawn that the said goods are liable to tax under the Act. While sub-section (1) of section 22b facilitates the passage of goods in transit by issuance of a transit pass to the carrier of the goods, sub-section (2) of section 22b operates against the carrier by providing for a presumption that the goods would be liable to tax in certain circumstances mentioned in that sub-section. The only effect of the non-application of section 22b is that transit passes are not issued in respect of goods in transit and presumption arising under sub-section (2) of section 22b is not available to the State. We are unable to accept the contention of Shri Ratta that section 22b of the Act is the only provision which relates to goods in transit and section 22a has no application to goods in transit. We find that section 22a bears the heading "establishment of check-post or barrier and inspection of goods while in transit". This shows that section 22a relates to goods in transit. The non-enforcement of the aforesaid provisions contained in section 22b does not, in our opinion, affect the validity of provisions contained in section 22a which specifically deals with the establishment of check-post or barriers and inspection of goods while in transit. As regards the decision of the Supreme Court in Sodhi Transport Co. v. State of U. P. [1986] 62 STC 381; AIR 1986 SC 1099 and the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court referred to by Shri Ratta, it may be stated that the said earlier decisions, on which reliance has been placed by Shri Ratta, have no bearing on section 22a of the Act. In Check Post Officer, Coimbatore v. K. P. Abdulla and Bros. [1971] 27 STC 1, the Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions contained in section 42 (3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 42 of the said Act provided for setting up of check-post or the erection of a barrier or both, at such place or places as may be notified and to check up all records at such check-post or barrier. The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the said provisions on the view that they are intended to set up machinery for preventing evasion of sales tax. The Supreme Court has struck down the provision contained in sub-section (3) of section 42 of the said Act because it provided for confiscation of the goods which were seized on the view that the power to confiscate goods could not be held to be ancillary or incidental to the power to legislate for levy of sales tax. The said decision can have no application to section 22a of the Act because section 22a does not provide for confiscation of the goods and it only provides for seizure of the goods which may be released on payment of penalty. In Hansraj Bagrecha v. State of Bihar [1971] 27 STC 4, the Supreme Court struck down rule 31b of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1959, on the view that the said rule related to inter-State sales and was outside the purview of the legislative competence of the State. In our opinion there is difference in the language of rule 31b which was struck down by the Supreme Court in Hansraj Bagrecha v. State of Bihar [1971] 27 STC 4 and the language of section 22a of the Act.
(3.) IN that view of the matter we are of the view that the two decisions of the Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed by Shri Ratta have no bearing in so far as validity of section 22a of the Act is concerned and there is no reason not to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court in INdian Roadways Corporation v. State of Rajasthan (Writ Petition Nos. 1555 and 1556 of 1983) decided on April 23, 1986 and Sanjay Transport Corporation v. State of Rajasthan (Writ Petition No. 1517 of 1986) decided on November 17, 1987 wherein validity of section 22a of the Act has been affirmed. As regards the issuance of a direction to the State of Rajasthan to bring into force the provisions of section 22b of the Act, it may be stated that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the State of Rajasthan to bring into force the provisions of section 22b of the Act. In this regard reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in A. K. Roy v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 710 wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, has held that no writ of mandamus could be issued directing the Central Government to bring into force the provisions of section 3 of the said Amendment Act. Thus we find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed. . ;