2000 (4) TMI 830 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Detention of goods by Excise and Taxation Officer, Failure to release goods upon furnishing security, Allegations of harassment by officer, Compensation for wrongful detention

Detention of Goods by Excise and Taxation Officer:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, sold goods for an inter-State sale to a buyer in Rajasthan. The goods were being transported through a transport company when they were intercepted by the Excise and Taxation Officer at a barrier. The officer detained the goods citing the lack of proper documentation and issued a detention memo. The petitioner executed a bond with sureties as required by law for the release of goods.

Failure to Release Goods Upon Furnishing Security:
The Excise and Taxation Officer failed to release the goods even after the petitioner complied with the legal requirement of furnishing a bond with sureties. The officer claimed that he had sent the file to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner for further action and therefore could not release the goods. This action was challenged in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Allegations of Harassment by Officer:
The petitioner accused the Excise and Taxation Officer of harassing transporters at the barrier and detaining goods on flimsy grounds. Similar allegations against the officer were pending in other cases. The High Court observed that the officer's refusal to release the goods despite the petitioner fulfilling the legal requirements was unjustified and amounted to harassment. The officer's excuse of not having the file with him was deemed unacceptable.

Compensation for Wrongful Detention:
The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to release the goods immediately. Additionally, the court ordered the Excise and Taxation Officer to personally pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 to the petitioner for wrongfully detaining the goods even after the bond was furnished. The compensation was not to be debited to the State account. The petitioner was also awarded costs amounting to Rs. 2,000. A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned department to convey displeasure at the officer's conduct.

Conclusion:
The High Court's judgment emphasized the duty of the detaining officer to release goods upon the fulfillment of legal requirements by the petitioner. The court condemned the officer's actions as unjustified harassment and ordered compensation for the wrongful detention of goods. The judgment highlighted the importance of upholding the law and preventing unnecessary harassment of the public by government officials.