BHAGWAN PRASAD Vs. OFFICER IN CHARGE HATHIDAH CHECK POST MOKAMEH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of rule 38 of the Bihar Sales tax Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

(2.) The petitioner challenges the validity of rules 38 of the Rules, which was framed in Pursuance of the Bihar Sales Tax Ordiance, 1976 (Ordinance No. 209 of 1976), on the ground that it is ultra vires of the Constitution only to the extent that it relates to inter-State trade. In this connection he relies on a decision ot the Supreme Court in Hansraj Bagricha v. The State of Bihar, 27 S. T. C.4, Learned Advacate General concedes that rule 38 does not apply to the inter-State trade. He submits that rule 38 applies to intra-State trade and not to inter-State trade. On a perusal of rule 38 also, it is clear that ruie 38 applies to intra-State trade and not to inter-State trade. If it is so, then it is not necessary for a person in respect of inter-State trade to obtain Form No. 28-B under sub-rule (2) or rule 38. Therefore, in the present case, it was not at all necessary for the petitioner to have obtained the Form 28-B under sub-rule (2) of rule 38. In this view of the matter, we hold that in a case of inter-State trade, the provisions of rule 38 of the Rules do not apply. The provisions of rule 38 shall apply only in a case of intra State trade.

(3.) In the result, this application is disposed of with the observations made above. Parties shall bear their own costs. In view of the direction of this Court made in order dated 20th May, 1977, if any security has been furnished by the petitioner, the same shall be retured to him. Application disposed of.