AERO CLUB Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 30.12.1994, he had sent goods on consignment basis to M/s Embassy Shop, Ludhiana-respondent No. 4 from New Delhi vide invoices Annexures P-2 to P-10-A. The value of the goods in total is stated to be Rs. 16,54,219/-. The respondent No. 3 detained the goods vide order dated 31.12.1994 Annexure P-13. On 3.1.1995 the petitioner-firm offered a bank guarantee of Rs. 5.00 lacs (annexure P-14) and got the goods released vide release order (Annexure P-15).

(2.) Under Section 14-B(7) of the Punjab General Sales-Tax Act, 1948, the Officer detaining the goods has to follow the procedure prescribed therein. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the goods. The detained officer was required to issue notices to the petitioner and respondent No. 4 M/s Embassy Shop and was to pass appropriate order after hearing them. On 14.3.1995, the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer passed an order imposing penalty on M/s Embassy Shop, Ludhiana-respondent No. 4. This order came to be passed on the footing that M/s Embassy Shop, Ludhiana-respondent No. 4 is the owner of the goods.

(3.) Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner and in fact, the consignment/goods belong to the petitioner and it was consigned to respondent No. 4 M/s Embassy Shop on agency basis. The petitioner is very much owner of the goods and that is why he petitioner was interested in getting the goods released and therefore, bank guarantee was furnished. Mr. Goyal learned counsel for the petitioner also drew our attention to bank guarantee which was furnished by the petitioner.