Report No. 61
7.5. Judicial decisions-Andhra case.-
As a starting point for discussion, we may take a recent case1 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It held sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 to be beyond the legislative competence of the State. Under those sub-sections, the officer-in-charge of the check-post could seize goods not covered by way bills containing the prescribed particulars, and could confiscate them if the penalty levied was not paid. It was held by the High Court, following a Supreme Court judgment2, that the power to confiscate and seize goods was not ancillary or incidental to the power to tax the sale or purchase of goods. We shall, in due course, discuss the judgment of the Supreme Court3.
1. Anandpur District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. Special Assistance Commercial Tax Officer, (1972) 29 STC 649 (653, 654) (AP).
2. Check-Post Officer v. K.P. Abdullah, (1971) 27 STC 1.
3. See para. 7.7, infra.
Back
