Goods vehicle definition limits detention powers: section 14-B cannot apply to an animal-driven cart.

Section 14-B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, as extended to Chandigarh, was construed as a detention and penalty provision limited to goods carried in a goods vehicle or vessel, with "goods vehicle" taking its meaning from the Motor Vehicles Act as a mechanically propelled vehicle. On that construction, the power to inspect, detain, and penalise could not be extended to an animal-driven cart. The notice and proceedings initiated under section 14-B were therefore without jurisdiction and bad in law, and the impugned notice and proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 14-B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 applied to goods being carried in an animal-driven cart, and whether the notice and proceedings initiated under that provision were without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 14-B, as extended to Chandigarh, was read as a scheme dealing with inspection, detention and penalty in relation to goods carried in a goods vehicle or vessel. The provision repeatedly referred to the owner or person in charge of a goods vehicle or vessel and required carriage of specified documents in that context. The expression "goods vehicle" derived its meaning from the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, where it denoted a motor vehicle, and a motor vehicle was defined as a mechanically propelled vehicle. On that construction, the statutory power to stop, inspect and detain goods in transit could not be extended to an animal-driven cart. The availability of a transit-sale bill or alleged non-charging of local tax did not cure the basic jurisdictional defect arising from the inapplicability of section 14-B to the mode of transport used.

Conclusion: Section 14-B was held not to cover goods carried in an animal-driven cart, and the notice as well as the proceedings initiated under that provision were declared without jurisdiction and bad in law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the impugned notice and proceedings were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A detention and penalty provision framed for goods carried in a goods vehicle or vessel cannot be extended to an animal-driven cart where the statutory definition of goods vehicle is tied to a mechanically propelled motor vehicle.

---