Civil Writ Petition No.14859 of 2011 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. No.11581 of 2011 and Civil Writ Petition No.14859 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.8.2011 M/s Yanshika Impex ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. Civil Misc. No.11581 of 2011 Reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 is taken on record subject to just exceptions. The Civil Misc. Application is disposed of. Civil Writ Petition No.14589 of 2011 This petition seeks quashing of detention notice dated 11.8.2011 (Annexure P-3) under Section 51(6) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short “the Act) and issuing of a direction to release Vehicle No.PB-23H-0185 along with the goods therein. Case of the petitioner is that it purchased goods which were being transported out side the State in the course of the inter State sale. The tax payable on the transaction was duly paid and the documents were available with the driver of the vehicle. According to the petitioner the Civil Writ Petition No.14859 of 2011 -2- **** vehicle was detained on the allegations that the vehicle was taking abnormal route and information had not been given at the check post. The petitioner was asked to appear on 12.8.2011 at 11.00 A.M. The petitioner contacted the Excise and Taxation Officer, Mobile Wing, Punjab on his Mobile and met him. The respondent asked the petitioner to bring penalty amount failing which FIR would be registered. The petitioner also met the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Mobile Wing, Punjab but to no effect. Earlier also the vehicle of the petitioner along with goods was illegally detained. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.12468 of 2011 which was allowed by this Court on 4.8.2011. Notice was issued and reply has been filed stating that the petitioner failed to approach the respondents for release of goods. Address given by the petitioner was wrong. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 16.8.2011 was issued under Section 24 of the Act for cancellation of Certificate of registration. The purchase invoice of the petitioner was manipulated one. There was under weighment in the bill and the GR which was an attempt to evade the tax due. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no doubt that check post can be established to check evasion of tax, the power of detention of vehicle and goods is a drastic power which has to be exercised fairly and whenever vehicle is detained and not released, the proceedings have to be finalised expeditiously. Under sub sections (6) and (7) of Section 51 of the Act, the period prescribed for detention of goods at the check post by the detaining officer is 72 hours. The detaining officer is required to either release the goods against security/surety or submit the case for further enquiry to the designated officer. The enquiry officer has to finally adjudicate the matter within a Civil Writ Petition No.14859 of 2011 -3- **** period of 14 days. The goods so detained can be released on furnishing security before final decision or where penalty has been imposed, on payment thereof. The officer detaining the goods has to record reasons. In the present case goods have been detained for the last 15 days, no final order has been passed as contemplated under Section 51(7)(b) of the Act. Further, contradictory stand in para l of the reply, where it is stated that the petitioner failed to approach the respondents while in para 7 it has been admitted that petitioner approached the respondents on mobile phone,lends support to the averments made by the petitioner that proceedings are being delayed without any valid reason. Pendency of proceedings in this Court is also no ground for keeping the goods detained without passing requisite order as statutorily required. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, we direct that goods of the petitioner along with vehicle be forthwith released provisionally on furnishing personal bonds. The petition is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice August 26, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge