THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.No.4095 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Aggrieved by the notice dated 11.2.2011, under Rule 56(1) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, detaining the goods, the petitioner dealer has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a registered VAT dealer and was issued a certificate of registration on 19.1.2009 with the address as D.No.5- 5-678, Goshamahal, Hyderabad. The petitioner claims to have changed their business address consequent to which an amended VAT Registration certificate was issued on 6.7.2010 with effect from 1.5.2007. It is their case that the way bills issued earlier by the 2nd respondent were not updated with the changed address. The petitioner would contend that their branch at Rajkot, in the State of Gujarat, had transferred plywood sheets, covered by transfer invoice No.907 dated 7.2.2011, for a proforma value of Rs.7,99,261/- only to indicate the probable cost of the plywood sheets for the purpose of effecting sales by calculating the sale price in the State of Andhra Pradesh. After the goods reached Hyderabad, and were about to be unloaded, the 1st respondent detained the lorry on 11.2.2011 on the ground that despite there being a change in the business address, as was evident from the amended registration certificate, both the transfer invoice and the self way bill indicated the old address. A notice of detention was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay tax of Rs.1,33,277/- @ 14.5% of the estimated sale value of Rs.9,19,150/- by adding 15% to the proforma value indicated in the transfer invoice. The petitioner was also directed to pay penalty equivalent to double the tax. The very jurisdiction of the authority to detain the lorry, and the goods therein, is questioned in this writ petition. However, during the course of arguments, Sri M.V.J.K.Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, with a view to avoid further delay in having the lorry and the goods therein released, the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the tax demanded of Rs.1,33,277/-. In such circumstances we see no reason to examine whether or not the 1st respondent had the jurisdiction to detain the lorry and the goods. Suffice to hold that, within 48 hours of the petitioner paying the tax and producing proof of payment of tax, the 1st respondent shall release both the lorry and the goods. Section 45(7)(a) of the A.P. Valued Added Tax Act, 2005 enables levy of penalty equal to twice the value of the tax payable. Such levy of penalty is, however, required to be preceded by an opportunity of hearing being afforded to the petitioner – dealer. As the proposal to levy penalty has not yet culminated in any order being passed levying penalty, we see no reason to examine this question in the present writ proceedings. Suffice to hold that the order now passed shall neither preclude the respondent-authorities from levying penalty in accordance with law, nor the petitioner from questioning the validity of the order of penalty, if any, which the 1st respondent may pass. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________ V.V.S.RAO, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 01.03.2011 Note: Issue C.C. by 3.3.2011 B/o ASP