Incomplete transport documents do not justify seizure where supporting papers exist and no enquiry shows tax evasion intent.

Seizure of a tea consignment under sales tax law was stated to depend on more than an incomplete road challan: where invoices and other supporting papers were produced within time, the authority had to make a reasoned enquiry before treating them as fabricated. The note states that mere incompleteness of the transport document, without a prescribed form and without evidence of fabrication or intention to evade tax, could not justify seizure or penalty. It further indicates that coercive action and penalty require objective satisfaction based on proper enquiry, and that the Tribunal ought to address any failure in that process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the seizure of the tea consignment was justified on the basis of the road challan and the supporting documents produced by the dealer. (ii) Whether the order of penalty and the Tribunal's affirmation of seizure could stand in the absence of a proper enquiry and a finding of intention to evade tax.

Issue (i): Whether the seizure of the tea consignment was justified on the basis of the road challan and the supporting documents produced by the dealer.

Analysis: The road challan by itself did not contain full particulars of the goods, consignor, or consignee, but the record showed that supporting documents such as invoices and other papers were produced within the prescribed time. The seizing authority discarded those documents without recording convincing reasons or showing what enquiry, if any, was made to test the allegation that they were fabricated. In the absence of a prescribed form for the challan, mere incompleteness of that document could not, by itself, justify seizure when additional materials were available.

Conclusion: The seizure was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the order of penalty and the Tribunal's affirmation of seizure could stand in the absence of a proper enquiry and a finding of intention to evade tax.

Analysis: Penalty and coercive action under the sales tax law require a concrete basis, including proper enquiry and a rational satisfaction that the dealer acted with an intention to evade tax. The materials on record did not disclose any adequate enquiry before rejecting the dealer's documents as fabricated, nor did they establish deliberate defiance of law. The Tribunal failed to address this decisive infirmity in the seizure process.

Conclusion: The penalty order and the Tribunal's order could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the seizure and consequential orders were set aside, and release of the seized goods was directed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Seizure and penalty under the sales tax law cannot be sustained merely because the initial transport document is incomplete if supporting documents are produced and there is no reasoned enquiry establishing fabrication or an intention to evade tax.

---