Delhi High Court
Ramesh Chawla vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax & Others on 17 July, 2000
Author: P . Arijit
Bench: A P Cj., M Sarin
ORDER
Arijit Pasayat, CJ.
1. These fourteen petitions are connected in the sense that in essence they challenge order of detainment of goods, passed by the Sales Tax authorities. The detainment orders were passed following the search and inspection of godowns. Petitioner in each case is a transporter whose trucks are used for carriage of goods on hire basis. Petitioners challenge the orders alleging that there is no legal sanction for the same.
2. Learned counsel for the sales-tax authorities submitted that there is absolutely no detail regarding consignors and consignees and, therefore, impugned action was taken. The orders of detainment in each case were passed on the ground that details of consignor and the consignee were not available in the documents relating to the goods stored/carried. By way of illustration it is stated that in some cases names of the consignors are given as "23", "400", "777", "K", so on and so forth. Practically, in no case the address of the consignor is indicated. Some of the invoices car-
ried sales tax registration numbers, which were either not issued or stood cancelled. The sales tax authorities, therefore, formed the view that the invoices were fictitious.
3. What the authorities wanted from the petitioners in each case was the details relating to the names and addresses of the consignors and consignees. Except in a very few cases these details have not been furnished. Therefore, the sales tax authorities proceeded with the view that on the basis of bogus and fictitious documents, goods were being transported, leading to evasion of tax. Counsel for the respondent made a statement in Court today that only goods had been detained and the vehicles carrying the goods had not been detained.
4. From the details submitted by the sales tax authorities, we find that the factual position as highlighted by the department is correct. It could not be shown to us by learned counsel for the petitioners as to how they are prejudiced when the vehicles have not been detained. An attempt was made to submit that in the process the business of the petitioners is getting adversely affected. Till now, except in a few cases, no consignor or consignee has come forward to ake his claim before the sales tax authorities, despite repeated advertisements. Learned counsel for the sales tax authorities stated that the claims of those who have come forward are being examined and, on being satisfied about the genuineness of the documents, necessary orders shall be passed for release of the goods.
5. Another grievance made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that action is being taken to burden the petitioners with heavy penalties. A statement was made by learned counsel for the sales tax authorities that it is not so and no case for imposition of penalty has been initiated against the petitioners.
6. A prayer was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for release of the goods detained on the basis of surety to be furnished by them. In view of the factual position that as consignors and the consignees have shown very little interest, except in few cases, we do not consider these cases to be fit ones where goods detained can be given on the basis of surety of the petitioners' who are the transporters.
7. Above being the position, we hardly see any reason to interfere in these cases. The writ petitions are not filed bonafide by the petitioners. These are filed for espousing the cause of others whose identities are not disclosed. Accordingly, we do not think it appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The writ petitions are without merit and are dismissed.
