Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing a writ petition partly. The writ petitioner had challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 37 and 38 of the Haryana Sales Tax Act. Section 38 had already been struck down by the High Court in an earlier decision, affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Sant Lal. Section 37's validity had been upheld by the Supreme Court in Delite Carriers v. State of Haryana. Thus the Supreme Court observed that the question of validity of Section 37 was no longer in issue. The only live issue was the interpretation of Section 37(2) concerning the documents required to be carried and produced by the owner or person in charge of goods, or the driver or person in charge of a goods carrier. The appellant's counsel, Harish N. Salve, submitted that it may be difficult for the appellant to produce some of the documents mentioned in sub-section (2), particularly in certain situations. The Supreme Court examined Section 37(2) and clarified that the sub-section refers to two sets of documents. The first set consists of the goods carrier record, trip sheet, and log book, which are mentioned in the alternative; thus production of any one of these three documents is sufficient and mandatory. The second set consists of the challan (as prescribed), cash memorandum, or bill, which are also mentioned in the alternative; ordinarily, any one of these three documents is sufficient. The court held that in short, one document from the first set and one document from the second set must be produced for sufficient compliance with sub-section (2). However, recognizing the practical difficulty pointed out by the appellant, the court further clarified that there may be situations where the person-in-charge, driver, or person-in-charge of the goods carrier may not be in a position to produce any of the documents in the second set. In such a case, it is for that person to satisfy the concerned sales tax authority that it is not possible to produce any of the said three documents. If the officer is so satisfied, he will not insist upon the production of any of the second set documents. The court explicitly clarified that the production of one document from the first set, i.e., goods carrier record or trip sheet or log book, is obligatory and cannot be dispensed with. The authorities were directed to examine the appellant's case in light of this clarification. The court further stated that in all other aspects, the decision of the Supreme Court in Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur v. Union of India shall apply. The appeal was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Sales Tax - Documentary Compliance - Mandatory and Dispensable Documents - Haryana Sales Tax Act, Section 37(2) - The provision requires two sets of documents: first set (goods carrier record, trip sheet or log book) and second set (challan, cash memorandum or bill). Production of any one document from the first set is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with; from the second set, any one document is ordinarily sufficient, but if the person in charge or driver satisfies the concerned sales tax authority that production of any second set document is impossible, the officer shall not insist on it. The court clarified this in response to appellant's difficulty and directed authorities to examine the case accordingly, with remaining aspects governed by Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur v. Union of India. Held that compliance with Section 37(2) requires one document from each set; second set can be dispensed on satisfaction of impossibility, first set cannot. (Paras 1-7) B) Sales Tax - Constitutional Validity - Settled Precedents on Sections 37 and 38 - Haryana Sales Tax Act, Sections 37, 38 - The High Court struck down Section 38 and this was affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Sant Lal; Section 37 was upheld in Delite Carriers. The court noted that no question of validity remained. Held that these settled positions need not be revisited. (Paras 1-7)
Issue of Consideration
Interpretation of Section 37(2) of the Haryana Sales Tax Act regarding the documents required to be carried and produced; whether production of one document from each set suffices and whether second set can be dispensed with.
Final Decision
Appeal disposed of with clarification: Section 37(2) requires production of any one document from the first set (goods carrier record, trip sheet or log book) and any one from the second set (challan, cash memorandum or bill); if production of second set is impossible, the person may satisfy the concerned sales tax authority, and the officer, if satisfied, shall not insist on production of those documents; production of one document from first set is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. Authorities may examine appellant's case in light of this clarification, and decision in Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur v. Union of India applies. No costs.
Law Points
- Section 37(2) Haryana Sales Tax Act requires carrying two sets of documents
- first set includes goods carrier record
- trip sheet
- or log book
- any one mandatory
- second set includes challan
- cash memorandum
- or bill
- any one sufficient
- second set can be dispensed with if officer satisfied of impossibility
- first set cannot be dispensed with
- validity of Section 37 upheld in Delite Carriers
- Section 38 struck down in Sant Lal
- decision in Sales Tax Officer
- Kanpur v. Union of India applies
