AMAR TRADERS Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by M/s. Amar Traders, Bidar, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in detaining the goods as illegal and arbitrary and to direct him to release the balance of consignment of 58 bags of Sagar brand gutka.

(2.) THE facts in brief are : The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "kst Act") and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of gutka, pan masala, zarda, supari and cigarettes. For the purpose of its business, it has purchased Sagar brand gutka from M/s. R. K. Products, Kanpur on credit basis in September, 1997 and received consignment at Bidar. The goods were sold during October, 1997 and he is paying tax under the KST Act which is due by November 20, 1997. He purchase further 116 bags from the said seller at Kanpur which were despatched vide sale bills and LRs. dated September 26, 1997, September 27, 1997, September 29, 1997 and September 30, 1997 to the petitioner. The goods were transported along with other goods meant for dealers in Hyderabad as per transporters separate challan. The consignment was being transported by South Golden Transport Company from Kanpur to Bidar via Hyderabad where the transporter appears to have arrangement for transhipment. The consignment reached Adilabad check-post on October 7, 1997. Under section 29-B of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 a transit pass is necessary whenever the goods are required to pass through Andhra Pradesh. It is issued at entry check-post and has to be surrendered at the exit check-post when leaving the border. At the check-post the authority after examining the documents accompanying the consignment should prepare the transit pass as per rule 46-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer made out a transit pass mentioning Kodikonda (Anantapur) as exit check-post. After preparing the transit pass respondent No. 2 did not allow the driver to proceed further, but referred the matter to the first respondent. Thereafter first respondent issued detention order dated October 10, 1997 on the ground that he obtained transit pass with Kodikonda as exit check-post and brought the lorry carrying the goods to the headquarter at Hyderabad for enquiry. The petitioner filed a representation to the first respondent on October 20, 1997 explaining that the consignment belongs to it and is under transport from Kanpur to Bidar. He produced all the relevant documents, however, the first respondent refused to release the goods. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) THE argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the goods meant for Bidar were booked at Kanpur and the route is via Hyderabad at Adilabad and a transit pass is to be issued by the Adilabad check-post and hence the driver applied for the transit pass and Kodikonda was mentioned as exit place. It was also argued that the goods were not meant for sale in Hyderabad but they were meant for sale at Bidar and that the first and second respondents do not have any power to detain the goods on suspicion that the goods are meant for sale in Hyderabad in the absence of material to that effect. It is argued that the driver produced all the necessary documents at the time when the lorry entered the check-post and on satisfaction of the documents produced the transit pass was issued, but strangely the exit point was mentioned as Kadikonda. Under section 29-B a transit pass is to be issued by the authority and while issuing the transit pass there is no power to detain the goods. Therefore, the detention of the goods is without any basis.