Writ interference with transit seizure and penalty declined where statutory documents were deficient and contravention was found.

Writ interference was refused where goods seized in transit were found to be accompanied by documents not meeting statutory requirements and not showing proper tax payment. The High Court treated the assessing and revisional authorities' factual conclusions as binding in writ jurisdiction and declined to reappreciate documents produced for the first time in revision. It further noted that once the authorities recorded contravention of section 29-A(8) and exercised discretion to impose penalty, no jurisdictional error was shown. The challenge to the seizure and penalty therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of goods in transit and the penalty imposed under section 29-A(8) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 were liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The seizure was upheld by the assessing and revisional authorities on the finding that the documents produced were not in conformity with the statutory requirements and that the goods were not shown to be properly tax-paid. The writ court declined to reappreciate factual findings or examine the correctness of documents produced for the first time in revision. It held that where the authorities record a conclusion that there was contravention of section 29-A(8) and exercise discretion to impose penalty, no jurisdictional error is shown for interference under writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the seizure and penalty failed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---