Check-post powers under sales tax law do not permit endorsement delaying delivery of goods; mandamus can restrain it.

Section 28(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was limited to interception and search of vehicles to check compliance with the declaration requirement for notified goods. It did not authorise the officer in charge of a check-post to endorse transport receipts so that delivery of goods would be withheld until the Sales Tax Officer was present. The Court treated that endorsement as causing delay in delivery and affecting business rights, and held that such interference was sufficient to attract Article 226. A writ of mandamus was therefore available to restrain the officer from making the endorsement.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 28(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act authorized the officer in charge of the check-post to endorse transport receipts so that delivery of goods would be made only in the presence of the Sales Tax Officer, and whether such endorsement could be restrained by mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 28 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act empowered the State Government to set up check-posts, required declarations from persons transporting notified goods, and authorized interception and search of vehicles to ensure compliance with the declaration requirement. The power conferred by sub-section (3) was limited to interception and search for the purpose of checking contravention of sub-section (2). It did not extend to directing that delivery of goods be withheld until the Sales Tax Officer was present. Such an endorsement imposed delay in delivery and affected the petitioners' business rights. The Court also rejected the contention that no enforceable right had been infringed, holding that the delay caused by the endorsement was sufficient to invoke Article 226.

Conclusion: Section 28(3) did not authorize the impugned endorsement, and the petitioners were entitled to a writ of mandamus restraining the officer from making it.

---