RAMESH CHAWLA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These fourteen petitions are connected in the sense that in essence they challenge order of detainment of goods, passed by the Sales Tax authorities. The detainment orders were passed following the search and inspec- tion of godowns. Petitioner in each case is a transporter whose trucks are used for carriage of goods on hire basis. Petitioners challenge the orders alleging that there is no legal sanction for the same.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the sales-tax authorities submitted that there is absolutely no detail regarding consignors and consignees and, therefore, im- pugned action was taken. The orders of detainment in each case were passed on the ground that details of consignor and the consignee were not available in the documents relating to the goods stored/carried. By way of illustration it is stated that in some cases names of the consignors are given as "123", "400", "777", "K", so on and so forth. Practically, in no case the address of the consignor is indicated. Some of the invoices carried sales tax registration numbers, which were either not issued or stood cancelled. The sales tax authorities, therefore, formed the view that the invoices were fictitious.

(3.) What the authorities wanted from the petitioners in each case was the details relating to the names and addresses of the consignors and consignees. Except in a very few cases these details have not been furnished. Therefore, the sales-tax authorities proceeded with the view that on the basis of bogus and fictitious documents, goods were being transported, leading to evasion of tax. Counsel for the respondent made a statement in Court today that only the goods had been detained and the vehicles carrying the goods had not been detained.