Transit goods and false documents: sales tax authorities may act on prima facie tax evasion, while writ relief is usually unavailable.

Sales tax authorities may investigate, detain and seize goods in transit where prima facie material indicates false documentation and a likely in-State delivery intended to evade tax, even if the goods are described as inter-State movement. The carrier must carry prescribed documents, and the authorities may proceed after giving an opportunity to the carrier, owner, consignor and consignee to explain the material. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not the proper forum where the dispute turns on contested facts, such as the genuineness of the order and documents, and an effective statutory appellate remedy is available.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the sales tax authorities could investigate, detain, and seize goods in transit where there was prima facie material suggesting false documentation and intended local delivery; (ii) whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be exercised despite disputed questions of fact and the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal.

Issue (i): whether the sales tax authorities could investigate, detain, and seize goods in transit where there was prima facie material suggesting false documentation and intended local delivery.

Analysis: The power to interfere with goods moving from one State to another is not available where the movement is genuine, but the authorities are entitled to act where there is definite information or prima facie material indicating that the documents are false and that the goods are likely to be delivered within the State to evade tax. In such a situation, the authorities may investigate, provide opportunity to the carrier, owner, consignor, and consignee, and proceed on the basis of the materials gathered. The carrier is also required to carry the prescribed documents under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules.

Conclusion: The authorities were not shown to lack jurisdiction merely because the goods were described as inter-State in transit; they could proceed on prima facie material suggesting tax evasion.

Issue (ii): whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be exercised despite disputed questions of fact and the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal.

Analysis: The controversy as to whether the Bombay purchaser had actually placed the order and whether the supporting documents were genuine was a disputed question of fact. The petitioner was to be supplied the relied-upon documents and given an opportunity to explain, and the statute provided an efficacious appellate remedy. In these circumstances, extraordinary jurisdiction was not the proper forum for adjudication.

Conclusion: Writ relief was not warranted and the petitioner was left to the statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the dispute turned on factual issues requiring statutory consideration and the case did not justify interference in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where there is prima facie material of tax evasion in respect of goods shown as inter-State transit, the authorities may investigate and proceed under the relevant sales tax law, and writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked to resolve disputed questions of fact when an adequate statutory remedy exists.

---