Known transport details and no false statement cannot justify seizure of goods or demand for an undertaking at check-gates.

Seizure of goods at a check-gate was held unjustified where the transport was for execution of a known contractual project, and the destination, purpose, and identity of the transporter were all disclosed. No false statement was shown before the officer, and the record did not disclose any express statutory authority to insist on an undertaking as a condition for release. In these circumstances, mere existence of statutory power was insufficient to sustain seizure. The impugned seizure and demand for undertaking were quashed, and the writ petition succeeded without costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of goods and the insistence on an undertaking at the check-gate were justified when the goods were admittedly being transported for execution of a known contractual project and no false statement was shown.

Analysis: The transport was for fulfilment of an agreement with a public sector undertaking and the destination, purpose, and identity of the transporter were known. The record did not show any false statement made before the check-gate officer. In such circumstances, mere existence of statutory power did not justify seizure of the goods, especially where no provision under the sales tax law authorised the demand for an undertaking and the facts, if disbelieved, alone could have altered the position.

Conclusion: The seizure and the demand for undertaking were unjustified and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the impugned actions were set aside, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the purpose, destination, and transporter of goods are known and no false statement is disclosed, seizure of the goods cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a claimed statutory power, in the absence of express authority for the demanded condition.

---