Seizure of goods requires evidence of tax evasion, not mere absence of documents during transport.

Goods cannot be detained or seized merely because the consignment was not accompanied by documents; there must be material showing an attempt to evade tax. On the facts, the transfer was an urgent stock transfer by a registered dealer, the papers produced shortly after detention were already in existence, and the driver's conduct did not indicate any plan to evade assessment or payment of tax. A reference to another consignment did not justify treating the exempted goods document as relating to the disputed goods. The omission to carry the papers was therefore an accidental lapse, so the seizure could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure and detention of goods could be sustained when the consignment was not accompanied by the requisite documents and the surrounding circumstances did not indicate an attempt to evade tax.

Analysis: The power to detain or seize goods for want of documents is not to be exercised merely because the accompanying papers were absent. It must be supported by material showing that the goods were being transported in an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax. The consignment was an urgent stock transfer by a registered dealer, and the documents produced soon after detention showed that the papers were already in existence and had not been fabricated after the event. The driver's conduct and statement did not suggest any plan of tax evasion, and the reference to another consignment could not justify linking the exempted goods document to the disputed goods. The omission to carry the papers was therefore only an accidental lapse.

Conclusion: The seizure was not justified and could not be sustained, as there was no material to support an inference of an attempt to evade tax.

---