http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SARAL KUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/01/1996

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1047            1996 SCC  (2) 291  JT 1996 (1)   582        1996 SCALE  (1)510

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have  heard learned  counsel for  the parties.  This appeal is  directed against  the judgment  of the Punjab and Haryana High  Court allowing  the writ  petition partly. The writ petitioner  challenged the  validity of Sections 37 and 338 of  the Haryana  Sales Tax Act in the High Court. So far as Section  38 is  concerned, it was struck down by the High Court in an earlier decision which was been affirmed by this Court in  State of  Haryana &  Ors. v. Sant Lal & Anr. (1993 (91) S.T.C.  321). No  further need  be said with respect to Section 38 of the Act.      Coming to  Section 37 of the Act, its validity was also upheld by  this Court in Delite Carriers (Regd.) v. State of Haryana &  Ors. (1990) 77 S.T.C. 170). Thus, the question of validity of  Section 37 is also no longer is issue. However, Sri Harish  N. Salve, learned counsel for the appellant, has stated that it may be difficult for the appellant to produce some of  the  documents  mentioned  in  sub-section  (2)  of Section 37. We may clarify the issue. Section 37(2) reads as under :      "The owner  or person  incharge  of  the      goods and  when the goods are carried by      a goods carrier, the driver or any other      person incharge  of the  goods  carrier,      shall carry  with him  a  goods  carrier      record,  a   trip  sheet   or   log-book      (alongwith   a   challan   as   may   be      prescribed or cash memorandum or bill as      the case  may be),  in  respect  of  the      goods meant  for the  purposes of  trade      and are  carried by  him or in the goods      carrier and  produce the  same before an      officer incharge  of  a  check  post  or      barrier or  any  other  officer  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    department not  below  the  rank  of  an      Assistant Excise  and Taxation Officer o      such  other   officer,  as   the   State      Government may, by notification appoint,      checking the  goods carrier at any other      place."      It is  obvious from  a reading  of the sub-section that the sub-section  refers to  two sets of documents. The first set of  documents are  goods carrier  record, trip sheet and log book. They are mentioned in the alternatives which means that production of any one of these three documents would be enough. The  sub-section proceeds  further and says that any of the said three documents should be produced "along with a challan as  may be  proscribed or cash memorandum or bill as the case may be." These three documents, viz., challan, cash memorandum and  bill may  be called second set of documents. These  three   documents  are   again   mentioned   in   the alternative,  which  means  that  any  one  of  these  three documents can  be produced.  In short,  one of the documents from the  first set and one of the documents from the second set have  to be  produced and  that would  be  a  sufficient compliance with  the requirements  of  subsection  (2).  Sri Salve, however,  points out  that there  may  be  situations where the  person-in-charge of  the goods/the  driver/or the person-in-charge of  the goods  carrier  may  not  be  in  a position to  produce any of the documents in the second set, i.e. either the challan (as prescribed by Rules) or the cash memorandum or  the bill.  It is  clarified herewith  that in such a  cash, it  is for  him to satisfy the concerned sales tax authority that it is not possible for him 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 said three documents, viz., the challan, cash memorandum or bill. It is  also clarified that so far as the production of goods carrier record  or trip  sheet or  log  book  is  concerned, production of  any one  of them  is obligatory and cannot be dispensed with.      The Authorities may examine the appellant’s case in the light of the above clarification.      In all  other aspects,  the decision  of this  Court in Sales Tax  Officer, Kanpur  & Ors.  v. Union of India & Ors. (1995 Suppl.  (1) S.C.C. 410) shall apply herein. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. No costs.