THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.111 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao) This writ petition is instituted challenging the action of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Adilabad Circle, Adilabad, in detaining the goods vehicle bearing Registration No. MH 04 AL 2873/MH 04 AL 2573, along with goods comprising 230 bags of Arecanuts, duly issuing notice thereof in Form 610 dated 29.12.2010. It is stated that the petitioner, a Cold Storage dealer of Jalandhar, is a registered VAT dealer on the rolls of the Excise and Taxation Officer, Jalandhar-I, Punjab, with TIN No.03316016124. It is stated that the petitioner has placed an order on M/s. Mittathil Traders of Kongad in Palakkad District of Kerala State, for supply of 230 bags of arecanuts, on 20.12.2010 and paid an amount of Rs.6,81,156/- towards the value of the said goods. It is further pointed out that the trader at Palakkad has enaged M/s. Swathik Cargo for transporting the goods. They were inspected at Adilabad in Andhra Pradesh and the inspection has revealed several irregularities including improper valuation of the goods transported as well as discrepancies in noting down the details of the truck and other accompanying documents. The 1st respondent has issued notice, detaining goods at check post in terms of Rule 56 (1) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. It is this order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. Heard Ms. Sujatha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. It is contended before us that the goods, which are transported from Kerala State to Punjab State, passed through only the State of Andhra Pradesh and no sale consideration has ever taken place in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is further contended that the goods are liable to be processed within 15 days, otherwise they will be losing their essential value and will be reduced greatly. It is further contended that no notice has also been served on the consignor. However, the learned Government Pleader has drawn our attention to the fact that notice in Form 610 as well as the notice in Form 603 have both been delivered on the truck driver and he has acknowledged the same. Since the consignor has not been accompanying the goods, the mode of service known in such circumstances was to serve a copy of the notice on the truck driver, but however, without going into the merits of the case, we consider it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay the value of the goods @ Rs.6,81,156/-, which is mentioned as the value in the notice of detention issued in Form VAT 610 dated 29.12.2010. The petitioner shall also furnish a copy of its address proof as well as a copy of his PIN number issued at Jalandhar. The petitioner shall also furnish a bank guarantee in a further sum of Rs.6,81,156/- (Rupees six lakhs eighty one thousand one hundred and fifty six only). The enquiry may go on and after complying with the above orders, the truck as well as the goods detained by the 1st respondent shall be returned, if not returned already. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J ______________ K.G.SHANKAR,J 6th January, 2011 Note: Issue Operative portion by wire at paty’s costs B/o v v