Detention of goods for suspected tax evasion cannot compel both tax and penalty before penalty proceedings begin.

At the detention stage for suspected tax evasion, the authority could require payment of the quantified tax liability or security as permitted by the statute, but not insist on both tax and penalty before penalty proceedings were initiated. The governing provision allowed detention where the sale or purchase was not properly accounted for and permitted a direction to pay tax or furnish security equal to twice the tax payable. Because the notice itself quantified the tax liability and no penalty proceedings had yet begun, the demand for security exceeding the tax liability was not justified. The vehicle and goods were ordered to be released on deposit of the quantified tax amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether, at the stage of detention of goods on suspicion of tax evasion, the authorities could insist upon payment of both tax and penalty, and whether the demand for security exceeding the tax payable was valid.

Analysis: The detention was made under the power to prevent evasion of tax where the officer is satisfied that the sale or purchase of the goods has not been properly accounted for. The governing provision permitted the officer to direct payment of the tax or to furnish security equal to twice the tax payable. On the facts, the proposed penalty proceedings were yet to be initiated, and the notice itself indicated a quantified tax liability. At the stage of detention, the statutory scheme did not permit a demand for both tax and penalty, and the insistence on security for an amount beyond the tax liability was not justified.

Conclusion: The demand for both tax and penalty was invalid at the detention stage, and the petitioner was entitled to release of the vehicle and goods on depositing the quantified tax amount.

---