S.V.MARUTHI, J. - (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. In the counter filed by first respondent it is stated that when the goods reached the check-post on enquiry and inspection of M/s. Amar Traders, Bidar, by Assistant Commissioner, II Circle, Bidar, on October 15, 1997 it was found that M/s. Amar Traders, Bidar, started purchase of Sagar brand gutka from M/s. R. K. Products, Kanpur, with effect from September 24, 1997 and that the first invoice was bearing No. 281, dated September 24, 1997 from Kanpur. But, the goods were said to have been received from M/s. South Golden Transport, Hyderabad, through M/s. New Bidar Goods Transport, Hyderabad, on October 14, 1997 and October 5, 1997 for which the dealer purportedly paid freight charges. The dealers stated that they sent the demand drafts to M/s. R. K. Products, Kanpur, after receiving the goods and after sales are effected, through Punjab and Sind Bank, Bidar. The dealer also stated that, they deposited Rs. 50,000 on October 13, 1997, Rs. 1,04,000 on October 14, 1997 and Rs. 30,000 on October 15, 1997 into their bank account No. 800. All these deposits into bank at Bidar, ostensibly for payment to M/s. R. K. Products, Kanpur, to obtain demand drafts, started after detention of goods by Assistant Commissioner (C. T.), Intelligence II, Enforcement, Hyderabad, on October 10, 1997. The first despatch of goods itself, in the name of M/s. Amar Traders, Bidar, from Kanpur started from September 24, 1997, after Sagar branch gutka relating to M/s. Amar General Store, Hyderabad, was detained on September 20. 1997, at M/s. South Golden Transport Company, Hyderabad. Under these circumstances, 116 bags of Sagar brand gutka of noted value as per L. Rs. and invoices, covered by 21 L. Rs. of M/s. South Golden Transport Company being transported by Lorry No. UP-78-B-2255, entered the State of A. P. through Integrated check-post, Bborai, Adilabad on October 7, 1997. It is also stated that on enquiry by the Commercial Tax Officer V of Enforcement Wing the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Integrated check-post, Bhoraj, Adilabad, on October 15, 1997 stated that he enquired with the driver of the vehicle orally, as to his destination, who was reported to have stated as Hyderabad and Bidar, and accordingly after satisfying with the driver's reply, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Integrated check-post, Bhoraj, Adilabad said to have issued transit pass mentioning Kodikonda as exit check-post. This indicates that transit pass was obtained by misrepresenting the facts deliberately by the driver of the vehicle. The transit pass No. 20651, dated October 7, 1997 was taken for the consignment ostensibly destined for Bidar, but strangely indicating exit check-post as "kodikonda" in Anantapur district. Kodikonda is neither in the way nor remotely connected to Bidar from any reasonably pliable route. Part of the consignment of gutka in the vehicle No. UP-78-B-2255 was meant to M/s. Amar General Store, Hyderabad, and part of gutka was in the name of M/s. Amar Traders, Bidar, hence the consignment which was sent to Bidar was suspicious.
(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.;