Transit seizure for minor description mismatch was unjustified, and writ relief remained available despite an appellate remedy.

Goods merely in transit through the State should not be seized solely because the trip sheet description differs slightly from the sample report; under the U.P. trade tax transit procedure, the officer should record the discrepancy, permit passage, and verify at the exit check-post if needed. Where the goods are not meant for consumption or sale within the State, such a minor variance does not justify confiscatory action. The availability of an appellate remedy did not bar writ intervention because the detention and seizure were treated as without jurisdiction, making relief under Article 226 maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether seizure of goods in transit through the State was justified merely because the description of the goods in the trip sheet differed from the sample report, and (ii) whether the existence of an appellate remedy barred interference under Article 226.

Issue (i): whether seizure of goods in transit through the State was justified merely because the description of the goods in the trip sheet differed from the sample report

Analysis: Section 28-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Rule 87 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules contemplate transit of goods through the State on a trip sheet, with the officer at the entry check-post examining the documents and the officer at the exit check-post verifying that the same consignments are taken out. Where goods are merely passing through the State and are not being imported for consumption or sale within the State, a minor discrepancy in description does not justify seizure. The proper course is to record the officer's opinion on the trip sheet, permit transit, and, if necessary, take samples or make verification at the exit check-post.

Conclusion: The seizure was not justified and was liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): whether the existence of an appellate remedy barred interference under Article 226

Analysis: Although an appeal was available under Section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, the impugned detention and seizure were found to be without jurisdiction and unjustified. In such circumstances, the availability of an alternative remedy did not prevent exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: Goods in transit through the State could not be seized solely on a slight discrepancy in description, and the writ court was entitled to intervene to prevent an unlawful detention and secure release of the goods.

Ratio Decidendi: In transit cases under the State trade tax regime, seizure is impermissible where the goods are merely passing through the State and the alleged discrepancy in description can be dealt with by endorsement and verification, rather than by confiscatory action.

---