Statutory basis for goods detention and interim relief under Article 226 turned on specific breach and business prejudice.

Security demand and detention of goods under the U.P. Sales Tax Act require a specific statutory breach justifying the action; where the seizure memo alleged only excess stock and possible tax evasion, without disclosing breach of section 28-A, a demand for security at 40 per cent of the goods' value lacked statutory foundation and could not be sustained. The High Court's power under article 226 to grant interim relief was also affirmed: the court may act on balance of convenience and risk of irreparable injury, even before the respondents' return and despite alternative remedies. On the facts, continued detention would prejudice business while revenue could be protected otherwise, so interim release was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether security to the extent of 40 per cent of the value of the goods could be demanded and the goods detained where the seizure order did not disclose a breach of section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. (ii) Whether the High Court could grant interim protection under article 226 of the Constitution without awaiting the respondents' return and notwithstanding the availability of alternative statutory remedies.

Issue (i): Whether security to the extent of 40 per cent of the value of the goods could be demanded and the goods detained where the seizure order did not disclose a breach of section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permitted a demand of security up to 40 per cent of the value of goods only in cases attracting section 15-A(1)(o) or section 15-A(1)(q), that is, where there was import or transport in contravention of section 28-A or failure to obtain or deliver a transit pass. The seizure memo relied only on excess stock found on survey and alleged possible evasion of tax. It did not contain any allegation suggesting breach of section 28-A. On those facts, the demand for security at 40 per cent of the value of the goods had no statutory foundation and was without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The demand for 40 per cent security was unjustified and the detention of the goods on that basis could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could grant interim protection under article 226 of the Constitution without awaiting the respondents' return and notwithstanding the availability of alternative statutory remedies.

Analysis: The power under article 226 includes discretion to grant interim relief in appropriate cases. The governing considerations are not limited to the existence of a prima facie case, but extend to balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable injury. The cited authorities were read as emphasising restraint in matters of public revenue and the need to avoid routine stays, but not as creating an absolute bar on ex parte or early interim relief. Since representations for release had already been made and remained unanswered, and continued detention of the goods would seriously prejudice the petitioners' business while the revenue could be secured otherwise, the case justified interim protection.

Conclusion: The High Court was competent to grant interim relief and the objection to doing so was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The seizure-based insistence on 40 per cent security was held unsustainable, and the petitioners were found entitled to interim release of the goods on the terms directed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Security and detention orders in sales tax matters must rest on the specific statutory breach that authorises them, and the grant of interim relief under article 226 depends on a judicial assessment of balance of convenience and irreparable harm, not on prima facie case alone.

---