IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.18299 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.11.2008 M/s D.K.Enterprises -----Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. Vipin Kumar Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl.A.G.Punjab for the respondents. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J 1. This petition seeks a direction for release of cash security with interest taken by respondent No.3 for release of goods. 2. Case of the petitioner is that on 10.3.2007, vehicle of the petitioner carrying goods for transportation within the State of Punjab was detained by respondent No.3, Mobile Wing of the Excise and Taxation department. Goods of the petitioner were 1 CWP No.18299 of 2008 released against cash security of Rs.35400/- and the petitioner was required to sign certain documents. The petitioner never received any communication and no action was taken thereafter. Finally, the petitioner served a legal notice. Since no reply was received, this petition was filed. 3. Case of the petitioner is that under section 51 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, after the goods are detained and are released on security, enquiry is required to be conducted after giving an opportunity of hearing and only if there was attempt to avoid or evade tax, penalty can be imposed. In the present case, no such procedure was followed and no order was passed. 4. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, averments in the petition have been disputed and it is submitted that due enquiry was held after giving notice to the petitioner and order of penalty dated 18.3.2007 was passed. 5. Thus, a disputed question arises whether or not the petitioner was given an opportunity as contemplated and whether or not order of penalty recording a finding of evasion of duty was justified. 2 CWP No.18299 of 2008 6. We are of the view that such a disputed question can be appropriately raised in a statutory appeal available to the petitioner. 7. Since it has been stated that the petitioner was never aware of the order passed, without recording any final finding on the question whether the petitioner was aware or not about the order said to be passed, we consider it appropriate to direct that if the petitioner files an appeal within 30 days from today, the same will not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and will be decided on merits in accordance with law. 8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 19, 2008 (L.N.Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3