Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) MR . R.B. Mathur, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. Service is complete.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by non -release of his truck and the goods loaded therein.
(3.) THE petitioner contends that he is a driver of truck bearing No. HR 38L -3388 belonging to M/s. Maa Kela Goods Carrier, New Delhi. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Ward -III, Circle -I, Jaipur checked the aforesaid truck on 23.08.2014 near Kaman Marg Railway Crossing, Deeg, Bharatpur. The truck was carrying grocery goods from Delhi to Gujarat. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Ward -III, Circle -I, Jaipur detained goods along with the truck. According to the said Officer, TIN numbers of the parties were not found in existence and goods were not according to documents. Hence, he transferred the matter to Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Ward -I, Circle -I, Jaipur(for short 'Assessing Authority'). Assessing Authority issued notice to the petitioner on 02.09.2014 proposing levy of tax and penalty. The petitioner submitted reply to said notice on 16.09.2014 stating therein all defence regarding transaction and that the goods were to be transported from Delhi to Gujarat and the same were not to be unloaded in the State of Rajasthan. Assessing Authority rejected the submission of the petitioner and passed order dated 19.09.2014. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority, who vide order dated 16.10.2014 stayed part of the demand on the condition of furnishing security to the satisfaction of Assessing Authority. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'Tax Board'). The petitioner relied before the Tax Board upon the decision in the case of State of Rajasthan and Another v. M/s. Sodhi Transport Co. and Anr.,, (2001) 10 Sales Tax Today 219 and prayed that the remaining amount of demand be also stayed on furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority. The Tax Board vide order dated 30.10.2014 stayed the remaining demand till the decision of appeal pending before appellate authority or three months, which ever is earlier, requiring the petitioner to submit security to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Tax Board also directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent in the garb of Indemnity as provided under Section 89 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003(for short 'RVAT Act') has impeached the fundamental right of the petitioner provided to him by the Constitution of India by illegally detaining truck along with goods beyond seven days as provided under Section 76(5)(a) of the RVAT Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of Raj Auto Wheels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Ajmer and Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3073/2012 decided on 14.03.2012 along one another writ petition) and M/s. Apollo Surgicals v. the State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10422/2012) and argued that in the aforesaid cases, similar conditions were imposed upon the petitioners therein and this Court directed the respondents therein to release the goods subject to petitioners therein furnishing security by way of submitting a bond in RVAT Form 64 along with two sureties acceptable to the authorised officer as per the provisions of Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 (for short 'RVAT Rules'). It is contended that Section 83(7) of the RVAT Act would be applicable to only a dealer and not to driver.;