IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 7570 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Peacock Ceramics & Tiles, No.147/4, Sardar Patel Street, Kumaran Nagar, Padi, Chennai, Rep. By its Manager, Om Prakash Bishnoi ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer(Int.) Border Check Post, Zaheerabad, Medak District and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring action of the first respondent in detaining the vehicles bearing Nos. KA- 39/7053, KA-39/A-5231 and AP-7/Y-1179 along with goods on the ground of variation of stocks and with an intention to avoid taxes, basing upon the letter issued by the National Highway Authorities of India and the Project Director, CMU, Singarayaikonda, Ongole District, referred to in the detention notice dated 2.4.2001 as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of AP VAT Act and consequently to direct the first respondent to release the said vehicles along with goods, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner is a registered dealer under Tamilnadu VAT Act and CST Act, engaged in the business of purchase and sales of granite slabs. Pursuant to the indents for supply of granite placed by second to fourth respondents, the petitioner had loaded the same in the vehicles of the fifth respondent and since the vehicles have to necessarily pass through the State of Andhra Pradesh, the drivers have obtained transit pass and handed over the same to the check post authorities at Zaheerabad. But the sixth respondent at the boarder check post Zaheerabad, had intercepted the vehicles on 31.3.2010 and consequently the vehicle along with goods were detained on the allegation that they did not cross the toll plaza of Sunnam Batii and Tanguturu. It is further alleged that on physical verification, there was variation in the stocks. Hence, the present writ petition is filed raising multifarious contentions. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the authorities have not followed the procedure. He submits that there is counter signature of the authorities on the transit pass and, therefore, the authorities ought not to have detained the vehicles and the goods. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the official respondents. There is controversy with regard to the quantum of the granites loaded in the vehicles in question, on physical verification. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to release the vehicles bearing Registration Nos. KA-39/7053, KA-39/A-5231 and AP-7/Y-1179 along with goods on payment of the demanded tax in respect of each vehicle and on further condition of the petitioner furnishing an undertaking to produce the vehicles as and when required by the authorities, that the vehicles shall not be alienated, encumbered or effect any change which diminishes their value. It is made clear that this order does not preclude the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry, in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 06, 2010 Copy by 12.4.2010. //BO// MAS