ARYA CHEMICALS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 12th October, 1979, the Sales Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Agra, checked truck No. DHG 3023 belonging to M/s. Punjab Montgomery Transport Company, Agra, by unloading the same at its godown. He found that along with other articles there were 80 bags of zinc oxide in the said truck. Each bag of zinc oxide weighed 25 kg. On inquiries being made, Sri Avtar Singh, owner and driver of the truck, produced only one goods receipt No. 44260 dated 10th October, 1979, for 40 bags of zinc oxide wherein the name of the consignor was shown as Surendra Chemicals and that of the consignee as Arya Chemicals (the petitioner). The receipt indicated that 40 bags of zinc oxide had been despatched by Surendra Chemicals from Delhi to M/s. Arya Chemicals of Ferozabad. The truck driver was unable to produce any document in respect of the remaining 40 bags of zinc oxide. The Sales Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, accordingly felt that 40 bags of zinc oxide which had been brought along with the remaining 40 bags of zinc oxide covered by the goods receipt, in all probability belonged to M/s. Arya Chemicals which had procured those goods outside its books. However, as none of the 80 bags bore any special sign or making and it was not possible to ascertain which 40 of those 80 bags appertained to the goods receipt No. 44260 produced by Sri Avtar Singh, Sales Tax Officer, in exercise of his powers under Section 13-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seized all the 80 bags of zinc oxide and in due course forwarded a list of the goods seized by him to the assessing authority for imposing penalty in respect thereof.

(2.) On coming to know of seizure of 80 bags of zinc oxide, the petitioner moved applications before the Sales Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, claiming that it had properly obtained 40 bags of zinc oxide from M/s. Surendra Chemicals of Delhi. There was nothing irregular in the transport of those 40 bags and that the Sales Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, had no jurisdiction to seize them. So far as the remaining 40 bags were concerned, the petitioner had nothing to do with them. Neither did it own those bags nor was it in any way responsible for their being transported through the truck owned by M/s. Punjab Montgomery Transport Company. It, therefore, requested the Sales Tax Officer to release 40 bags of zinc oxide to it.

(3.) The authorities under the Act, however, took the view that all the 80 bags of zinc oxide which included the 40 bags of zinc oxide claimed by the petitioner could be released to it only on its depositing an amount sufficient to cover the penalty likely to be imposed upon the petitioner, as provided in Section 13-A(6) of the Act. However, the petitioner insisted that 40 bags of zinc oxide be released in its favour without requiring it to pay any amount to the sales tax department and when it failed in its attempt, it filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed that a writ be issued to the respondents directing them to release 40 bags of zinc oxide in its favour.