Unaccounted goods seizure cannot rest on non-registration alone; writ relief remains available against a jurisdictionally invalid order.

Deemed registration under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was unavailable because the statutory 30-day period under rule 28(10)(c) had not expired when the dealer was inspected. Seizure under section 28(6) was held to be confined to goods found at the place of business that were not accounted for in the dealer's records, so non-registration alone could not justify seizure; the seizure was therefore without jurisdiction and quashed. The writ petition was maintainable despite an appellate remedy because an order lacking jurisdiction is not protected by the alternative-remedy rule.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to deemed registration under the registration provisions before expiry of the statutory period; (ii) whether seizure of goods on the ground of non-registration was authorised under the seizure provision; and (iii) whether availability of an appellate remedy barred the writ petition.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to deemed registration under the registration provisions before expiry of the statutory period.

Analysis: The registration scheme under section 12 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and rule 28 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, requires a dealer in scheduled goods to obtain registration before commencing business. The deeming provision under rule 28(10)(c) operates only if the registering authority fails to act within 30 days of receipt of the application. Since the application had been filed only eight days before the inspection and the 30-day period had not expired, deemed registration had not come into existence.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to claim deemed registration on the relevant date.

Issue (ii): Whether seizure of goods on the ground of non-registration was authorised under the seizure provision.

Analysis: Section 28(6) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, empowers seizure only of goods found at the dealer's place of business which are not accounted for in the dealer's accounts, registers, or other documents. The impugned seizure was made solely because the dealer had no registration certificate. Non-registration by itself is not the statutory basis for seizure under that provision, and the dealer's registration status is irrelevant to the precondition of accounting for the goods.

Conclusion: The seizure was without jurisdiction and not authorised by law.

Issue (iii): Whether availability of an appellate remedy barred the writ petition.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy is ordinarily relevant in writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India, but it does not operate as a bar where the impugned order is patently without jurisdiction. Since the seizure order lacked jurisdiction, the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not barred by the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned seizure order was quashed and the seized goods were directed to be returned, while leaving the authorities free to proceed in accordance with law for any independent breach relating to registration requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: A seizure provision confined to unaccounted goods cannot be invoked merely because the dealer is unregistered, and the availability of an appeal does not bar writ relief against a patently jurisdictionally invalid order.

---