Petitioner is aggrieved by the detention of goods, as evidenced from Ext.P2. The vehicle, which was carrying goods within the State was detained by the Intelligence Inspector of the Commercial Taxes Department and Ext.P2 notice issued. On going through Ext.P2 notice, it is evident that the goods were not accompanied by any of the documents specified in the statute. Neither did a delivery note nor a bill or an invoice accompanied the goods. It is also revealed that photocopies of the delivery note and a bill accompanied the goods and the bill did not show the complete address of the dealer, to which such transport was carried, which again is a stipulation under this Act.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, immediately on detention, the delivery note and a bill in original was produced. But that however does not absolve the petitioner from ensuring the goods to be accompanied with required W.P.C. No.16072 of 2014 2 documents. This also would definitely lead to a suspicion of evasion of tax, since if not detected a subsequent transport could have been made on the original document.
In such circumstances, there is absolutely no reason why the petitioner should be granted release, without providing the security deposit demanded. The adjudication shall be untrammeled by the observations made herein, which are only in the nature of prima facie observations.
The writ petition is hence dismissed.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE sp