G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) THESE three petitions involve adjudication of identical questions of law and even though notices of different dates issued under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act 1948 (for short 'the Act') are under challenge, we deem it proper to decide all the petitions by a common order.
(2.) FOR the purpose of deciding the questions of law raised in these petitions it is sufficient to make reference to a few facts from Civil Writ Petition No. 3464 of l994. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax, 1948. It is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of rice. On 8th March, 1994 truck No. PB-02-9510 was intercepted by the Excise and Taxation Officer (Enforcement), Kaller Khera. Goods of the petitioner along with the truck and the documents were seized by the Excise and Taxation Officer and the petitioner was served with a notice (Annexure P3), calling upon the petitioner to present itself along with the account books and stock registers. The petitioner is said to have produced the relevant account books and other documents before the Excise and Taxation Officer and prayed for release of the goods, but respondent No. 2 is said to have refused to release the goods. Petitioner has alleged that actions are being taken against it on account of personal ill-will and prejudice of respondent No. 3 Shri Avtar Singh, Director (Enforcement), Punjab. It has been alleged that respondent No. 3 arranged raid on the business premises of the petitioner. Account books of this petitioner's business were taken away and the same were released only or the basis of the order passed by the Court. On account of the filing of the petition by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 has started a more vindictive attitude. He has instructed various check posts to detain the trucks carrying goods of the petitioner and on the basis of the instructions issued by respondent No. 3, as many as 45 trucks of the petitioner have been detained at various check posts. Further plea of the petitioner is that the truck carrying goods of the petitioner had documents relating to vehicle log books bill of sales or delivery notes containing such particulars as are prescribed in form ST 24. Petitioner's plea is that seizure of the goods is contrary to Section 14-B of the 1948 Act and failure of the respondents to release the goods of the petitioner suffers from patent arbitrariness. Further case of the petitioner is that all actions taken by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 suffer from malice in fact as well as malice in law.
(3.) IN reply the respondents have raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to avail alternative remedies available to it by way of appeal and reference as provided under Sections 20 and 22 of the Act. Another preliminary objection raised by the respondent is that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot examine the legality, genuineness etc. of the documents, which are required to be produced when the trucks carrying the goods are checked. On merits it has been stated that the truck in question was loaded with rice. When it was checked at the Sales Tax Check Barrier, Rajpura, District Ferozepur, it was found that the goods were accompanying with fictitious delivery notes and even though the delivery notes contained names of the consignor and consignee, weight, rate and price of the goods, these documents were not genuine. A notice was served on the driver of the truck. It was suspected that the petitioner-firm is not paying purchase tax on paddy out of which rice in question has been produced and that consignment note is being used by evading the tax. On the basis of this suspicion, respondent No. 2 detained the vehicle and the goods and gave a notice to the petitioner. Copy of the notice (Annexure R1) has been placed on record to show that action has been taken by respondent No. 2 in accordance with provisions of Section 14-B of the Act.;