2010 (11) TMI 938 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved: Seizure of goods and vehicles, illegal detention of vehicles, liability for damages.

Seizure of Goods and Vehicles: The petitioner, a registered transporter, had two vehicles carrying soyabean oil from Kandivili to Kanpur. The vehicles were seized in front of M/s B.L.Agro Private Limited, Bareilly, by the Trade Tax Department on the presumption that the goods were brought for sale to BL Agro. The drivers requested the release of the vehicles as only the goods were seized. The Assistant Commissioner ordered that the goods could be unloaded in containers and then the vehicles could be taken away. However, the petitioner did not challenge this order or unload the oil, leading to further applications for release of the vehicles.

Illegal Detention of Vehicles: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the release of the vehicles and compensation for their illegal detention. Despite various notices and opportunities, the vehicles were not released until the Mantora offered to take away the oil and got it released. The Court found that the vehicles had been released, rendering the writ petition infructuous for this relief, leaving only the question of damages.

Liability for Damages: The Court considered the responsibility for the delay in releasing the vehicles and the question of damages. It noted that the Department's order to unload the oil in containers was not followed by the petitioner, and the Mantora delayed taking custody of the goods. The Court concluded that determining liability and damages required evidence beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction, suggesting that a suit for damages was the appropriate remedy. The Court dismissed the writ petition, advising the petitioner to file a suit for the recovery of damages without being influenced by the judgment.

In conclusion, the High Court of Allahabad dismissed the writ petition, stating that the writ jurisdiction was not suitable for determining liability or the quantum of damages. The petitioner was advised to file a suit for damages if they chose to do so, with the assurance that any such suit would be decided without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment.