IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6792 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.4.2011 Rohit Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab & others. -----Respondents. and connected petitions being CWP Nos.6794 and 6795 of 2011 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of CWP Nos.6792, 6794 and 6795 of 2011 as it is stated that all the three petitions involve same question. 2. In CWP No.6792 of 2011, prayer is for quashing the notice dated 17.4.2011, Annexure P-1, detaining the vehicle of the petitioner and the goods carried therein. 3. Case of the petitioner is that it is a transporter and was carrying goods with relevant documents when the vehicle C.W.P. No. 6792 of 2011 was detained at the Check Post. The reason for detention was that the goods to be transported appeared to the detaining authority to be in excess of quantity mentioned in the documents, which implied that there was attempt at evasion of tax. The petitioner was required to bring a sum of `8 lacs for release of goods which the petitioner could not arrange. Thus, the goods were not being released on account of arbitrary action. According to the petitioners, detention of goods was without any valid basis and in any case, continued detention thereof and refusal to release the goods on reasonable conditions was against the principles of fair procedure and thus, illegal. 4. According to the reply filed by the Excise and Taxation Officer concerned, there was under-valuation of goods in the documents to the extent of `42,350/- which was attempt at evasion of tax of `2,500/- approximately. In other two cases, the attempt at evasion of tax is said to be of about `25,000/- approximately. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of detaining the goods at the Check Post was arbitrary and malafide. There was no attempt at evasion and even if valuation of the respondents is accepted and it is to be presumed that there was attempt at evasion of tax of about `27,500/-, there was no justification for demanding `8 lacs for release of goods. It is further pointed out that the action is highhanded. At best, the 2 C.W.P. No. 6792 of 2011 petitioner could be required to furnish bond of `27,500/- or the information could have been sent to the concerned authority so that the alleged loss of tax could be recovered from the concerned dealer. Reliance is placed on judgment of this Court in Xcell Automation v. Government of Punjab and another [2007] 005 VST 0308 to the effect that power at the Check Post cannot be abused and detention cannot be arbitrarily continued. Even if there was an allegation of attempt at evasion, the goods must be released on reasonable conditions. No justification has been shown for demand of `8 lacs for release of goods. 7. We are of the view that the present case is an instance of abuse of authority by the concerned detaining authority at the Check Post. No basis for suspicion of undervaluation has been shown. Even if it is assumed that there was alleged under-valuation and attempt at evasion of tax to the extent of `27,500/-, continued detention of goods and the vehicles for more than a week resulting in loss of more than the amount of alleged evasion of tax cannot be ignored. The detaining authority is expected to act responsibly and pass appropriate order to the extent required for checking the evasion of tax. This has not been done. Continued detention may be permissible only if there is failure on the part of the owner or the transporter to secure the allegedly evaded tax or the amount of penalty which may be entailed under the statutory provisions. Acting on one technicality or the other with a view to harass and 3 C.W.P. No. 6792 of 2011 abuse the power of detention of vehicles and goods is not consistent with the fair procedure required to be followed to justify interference with the right of life and liberty of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Head of the concerned Department of the State must ensure that drastic power of detaining vehicles and goods at the Check Post is not abused. We find that abuse is taking place frequently without any let or hindrance and the head of the concerned department has failed to check the abuse which calls for interference by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has undertaken to furnish bank guarantee to the extent of `50,000/- which will take care of the alleged evasion of tax and on such bank guarantee being furnished, the goods and the vehicles will stand released forthwith. The Bank guarantee will be to indemnify the State of the tax loss, if any determined in appropriate proceedings within six months from today. On expiry of six months, the Bank guarantee will stand discharged subject to tax liability being discharged. It is also made clear that this order will not debar any legal proceedings being taken in the matter, as may be permissible. The detaining authority will pay costs quantified at `50,000/- in all the three cases together to be deposited with the High Court Legal Aid Committee within one month from today. The amount of costs may be recovered from the person who is responsible for acting illegally. The State will also be at liberty to initiate 4 C.W.P. No. 6792 of 2011 disciplinary proceedings against persons responsible for the misconduct. The petition is disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE April 26, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 5