IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6931 of 2011 ====================================================== Gati Ltd., A Company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 1-7-293, M.G. Road, Secunderabad, A.P.-500003, through its authorized representative Sri Santosh Kumar S/o Sri Kamesh Prasad Thakur, Head Legal (East) Gati Ltd. Having Zonal Office at P-18, Tara Tala Road, Kolkata-88 (W.B.) and Branch Office at Tilkamanjhi, Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar at Patna. 3. The Joint Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Investigation Bureau Branch, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 4. The Commercial Tax Officer, Investigation Bureau, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Singh with Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-1 with Mr. Vikash Kumar, AC to AAG-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3. 02.05.2011 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by Gati Limited, a clearing, forwarding and booking agent and engaged in business of transporting goods, to challenge the legality of Rule 19(2A) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) on the ground that the said Sub-rule amounts to excessive legislation. Learned Advocate Mr. Sanjay Singh has appeared for the petitioner. He has taken us through Patna High Court CWJC No.6931 of 2011 (3) 02-05-2011 2 sections 55, 56 and 59 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and Rule 19 of the Rules. He has submitted that a dealer registered under the Act is required to furnish materials if called upon to produce such materials in exercise of powers conferred under sections 55 and 56 of the Act. Whereas, the petitioner, who is not a dealer registered under the Act is compelled to file details of its business in Form RT-X under Rule 19(2A) of the Rules. On account of the said provisions the business of the petitioner is adversely affected. Sub-rule (2A) of Rule 19 has been added by S.O. 180 dated 10th September 2008. The said Sub-rule requires every transporter or carrier or transporting agent or railway container contractor or courier who is registered under sub-rule (11) of rule 3 of the Rules to file quarterly return for each quarter in Form RT-X. The proviso thereof provides for a penalty in case of failure. Form RT-X incorporates particulars of the transport business of a transporter such as the particulars of the consignor, the consignee and the consignment. Learned Additional Advocate General-1 Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared for the respondents. He has submitted that under the impugned notice dated 29th April 2010 the petitioner was called upon to produce evidence of its registration and the particulars thereof. The petitioner did reply to the said notice under the direction dated 7th December 2010 issued by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 12790 of 2010 filed by the petitioner. However, the Patna High Court CWJC No.6931 of 2011 (3) 02-05-2011 3 particulars called for are not furnished. Instead the petitioner has challenged the validity of the aforesaid Sub- rule (2A) of Rule 19 on a mere ground that it works unjust to the petitioner. In our opinion, no statutory provision can be held to be ultra vires merely because a party feels it to be unjust. No other contention has been raised before us. The petition is dismissed in limine. Sujit (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)