THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.25363 OF 2002 DATED 10TH NOVEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN M/s.Sun Trading Company, 23, Kamatchi Amman Kovil Middle Street, Karoor, Tamilnadu. …Petitioner And The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Int.), Puttoor, Chittoor District. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.25363 OF 2002 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a proprietary concern. It is a registered dealer under Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act at Karoor. Under Bill No.22 dated 07.08.2002 the petitioner effected sale of one consignment of coconut oil to Ind Exports Limited C/o Hindustan Lever Limited, Yavatmal, Maharashtra. Statedly, the petitioner obtained necessary permit under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the Act’). While the vehicle was proceeding through Andhra Pradesh the respondent intercepted the vehicle on 10.08.2002. It was proposed to prosecute the petitioner for defective documents but the petitioner’s representative allegedly paid the tax amount of Rs.36,537/- and compounding fee of Rs.73,074/-. Thereupon, the vehicle was released. Assailing this action, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration and consequential direction to refund the amount paid by the petitioner. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent opposing the writ petition. The allegation of the petitioner that the payment was not preceded by another order assessing the tax or payment of penalty is not specifically denied. At the time of hearing, in the light of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Abmica Lamp House v. Commercial Tax Officer (Int)-I Enforcement[1], the counsel would submit that the method and manner of detaining the petitioner’s goods and the consequential collection of tax and penalty is illegal and arbitrary. In Abmica Lamp House, the Full Bench while upholding the power of the officers under the Act to inspect the business premises however laid down guidelines for the post-inspection procedure to be followed by the officers. Hon’ble Sri Justice Ananda Reddy who wrote the leading opinion allowed the writ petitions observing as under: “30. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned orders wherever no assessments are made for the disputed turnover, and consequently the amounts collected under the impugned order are ordered to be refunded or adjusted if there are any existing outstanding demands. In cases where assessments are made, the collected tax shall be subject to the outcome of the statutory appeals, if any. Similarly, if the compounding fee levied and collected is equal to the tax without any assessments, in such cases, the compounding orders are also set aside and the fee collected is to be refunded to the dealers or adjusted if there are any existing outstanding demands. No costs.” Following the above decision, we are also inclined to dispose of this writ petition in the same terms. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. ______________ V.V.S.RAO, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 10TH NOVEMBER, 2011. VGSR [1] (2005) 142 STC 551 = (2005) 40 APSTJ 56