N.D.Ojha, R.K.Gulati, JJ. - (1.) The petitioner, which is a partnership concern, carried on business in electric goods and cycle parts. The petitioner purchased some goods from certain dealers at New Delhi which were being transported by a truck of M/s. Bombay Madras Roadlines, New Delhi. The case of the petitioner is that these goods were being transported under the two invoices both dated 30th June, 1986. The truck carrying the consignment was checked at the Check Post, Ghaziabad and was detained. Subsequently after giving a notice to show cause to the transporters, those goods were seized by the Sales Tax Officer, Check Post/Mobile Squad, Ghaziabad.
(2.) The value of the entire goods which were being carried by the truck, was put by the Sales Tax Officer at Rs. 2,99,130.00. Subsequently it appears that the value of the goods belonging to the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1,42,400 and the petitioner was required to furnish 40 per cent of the aforesaid amount as cash security for getting them released. Aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Officer, the petitioner made an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Mobile Squad/Check Post, Ghaziabad, for the release of the goods without furnishing any security. That application was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Mobile Squad/Check Post, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 2, on 17th July, 1986.
(3.) The petitioner subsequently made another application before respondent No. 2 on 12th August, 1986, stating that the value of the goods had erroneously been fixed by the Sales Tax Officer at Rs. 1,42,400 when the two invoices one of which was already on record of the Sales Tax Officer and another was filed before the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No. 2, indicated that the value of the goods belonging to the petitioner was only Rs. 68,354. In this application, the petitioner made a prayer for the value of the goods being corrected and also for permission to furnish bank guarantee in place of giving cash security. This application was dismissed by respondent No. 2 on 13th August, 1986, merely by saying that after considering the said application, the same has been dismissed.;